37th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 091
CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 3, 2001
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Antarctica |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Burlington Arts Centre |
|
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington,
Lib.) |
|
|
Dr. Everett Chalmers
Hospital |
|
|
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton,
Lib.) |
|
|
Katimavik |
|
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert,
Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra,
Lib.) |
|
|
National Family Week |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay,
BQ) |
|
|
LandMines |
|
|
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur
(Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.) |
|
|
Prostate Cancer |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Marc Gélinas |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East,
Lib.) |
|
|
Léo Drolet |
|
|
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke,
BQ) |
|
|
Human Rights |
|
|
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's,
Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris,
PC) |
|
|
Member for Halifax |
|
|
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth,
NDP) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier
(Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Airline Industry |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PCDR) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Aid |
|
|
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Trade |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants,
PC) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris,
PC) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
(Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
(Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry,
Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Multiculturalism |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson
and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson
and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Government Response to
Petitions |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Committees of the
House |
|
|
Justice and Human
Rights |
|
|
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton,
Lib.) |
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Falun Gong |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore,
PC) |
|
|
Volunteer
Firefighters |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore,
PC/DR) |
|
|
VIA Rail |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Land Titles |
|
|
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Questions on the order
paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Motions for Papers |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Courts Administration Service
Act |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt |
|
|
Mr. Stan Keyes |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt |
|
|
Mr. Stan Keyes |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt |
|
|
Mr. Stan Keyes |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to, bill
read the second time and referred to a committee)
|
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada
Act |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion |
|
|
Mr. André Harvey (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise
(Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
The Acadians |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia--Matane,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark--Carleton,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique--Mactaquac,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond--Arthabaska,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape
Breton, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval
Centre, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Ms. Madeleine
Dalphond-Guiral |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Adjournment Proceedings
|
|
|
Airline
Industry |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. André Harvey (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Harbours |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. André Harvey (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment
Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst,
NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Shipbuilding |
|
|
Mr. Antoine Dubé
(Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Drouin (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Wednesday, October 3, 2001
Speaker: The Honourable Peter
Milliken
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
[]
* * *
(1400)
[English]
The Speaker:
As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing O
Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Saint John.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national
anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Antarctica
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, members of the Canadian Committee for
Antarctic Research and the Canadian Antarctic Research Network continue to
contribute to the science and well-being of Antarctica. Our satellite Radarsat
provides information on the flow of Antarctic ice. We have an exchange program
involving Arctic and Antarctic scientists. Canadians are studying the Antarctic
Ocean.
Last year 100 high school students went on a field trip
to Antarctica and reported widely on their experiences. Yet Canada is still not
a full member of the Antarctic treaty. We have not even ratified the treaty's
environment protocol.
Let us listen to our young people in this regard. Most
of the world's fresh water is in Antarctica. As a nation with exceptional cold
climate science expertise we can help preserve that resource and gain valuable
scientific expertise at the same time. Canada should become a full member of
the Antarctic treaty.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I admire and support our Canadian men and
women in uniform. When the opportunity to join the crew of a CC-130 Hercules on
a transport mission to the Arctic presented itself it was a dream come
true.
Under the Canadian Forces Parliamentary Program I
travelled to Canadian Forces Station Alert, Canada's northernmost permanent
installation at the tip of Ellesmere Island in Nunavut. While en route to CFS
Alert I became part of the crew of 429 Squadron out of 8 Wing CFB
Trenton.
I have always called for a well trained and well
equipped military. My time on board a 35 year old Hercules with over 40,000
flying hours has reinforced that support. The dedicated crew of Captain Rick
Harper, Major Norm Patterson, Captain Michel Goulet, Captain Jennifer Kooren,
Sergeant Steve Stewart, Master Corporal Kel Brown and Master Corporal Mike
MacNeil all performed wonderfully with their aging equipment.
In light of today's war on terrorism our men and women
in uniform must have better equipment to work with.
* * *
Burlington Arts Centre
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Burlington Arts Centre
on its expansion and reopening last Sunday. The centre first opened in June
1978 and accommodated specialized areas of study including hand weaving,
spinning, woodcrafting and ceramics. The arts centre has grown and launched
fabulous exhibits like Fragile Embrace which received over $100,000 from the
millennium fund.
Recently the arts centre has tailored programs to fit
the special needs of the Burlington Association for the Intellectually
Challenged, Big Sisters and the East Burlington Home and School Association. It
has developed community outreach programs for the Joseph Brant Memorial
Hospital, the Royal Bank of Canada and Chapters. The 8,000 square foot
expansion has increased space for the hands on program which hosted 3,500
school children last year.
The Burlington Arts Centre is unsurpassed in Canada. It
is an important people place and a source of inspiration and learning. I
congratulate the marvellous staff and volunteer team who have worked so hard to
make the dream of this extension such a beautiful reality.
* * *
Dr. Everett Chalmers
Hospital
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House today
to wish the Dr. Everett Chalmers Hospital of Fredericton a happy 25th birthday.
Named after a prominent Fredericton physician and Progressive Conservative
cabinet minister, the DECH has played a vitally important role in our
community. Today this regional hospital provides services to over 150,000 New
Brunswickers.
In the spirit of the International Year of the
Volunteer I thank all the people who have volunteered at the hospital over the
last 25 years. I also thank John McGarry, president and CEO; Bob Simpson, chair
of the board; and all those who have served on the hospital board prior to the
regionalization of medical services in the province and on the regional board
since for their commitment to the hospital and our citizens.
I congratulate the DECH for 25 years of meeting the
health needs of the people of Fredericton.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Katimavik
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Katimavik is a national program that gives
young Canadians the opportunity to discover our great country.
While they stay with a host family, young people do
volunteer work and practice their second language skills. Most importantly,
they discover their environment and learn more about their
compatriots.
Over 20,600 people and 2,000 communities have taken
part in the program since it was created in 1977 by former senator Jacques
Hébert. Last evening, he launched a book entitled Katima...Quoi?on the
program.
I invite my colleagues and all young Canadians to read
this book. It will take you through an unforgettable experience.
* * *
[English]
Softwood Lumber
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber dispute is costing
Canadian and American jobs and is benefiting only a handful of U.S. lumber
producers and forest landowners.
Members of American Consumers for Affordable Homes
wrote to President Bush yesterday and asked him to intervene in a preliminary
decision to impose countervailing duties of 19.3% on lumber imports from
Canada. They are appealing to Bush on the basis that the tariff is negatively
impacting the housing sector and other lumber dependent industries that provide
seven million jobs in the United States.
The dispute has also caused 15,000 forestry workers to
be laid off in British Columbia alone, including many in my riding of
Nanaimo--Cowichan. Federal government bonding guarantees will help put some
people back to work.
The deadline to apply for an exemption to the U.S.
tariff has recently passed. Now we discover that the Liberal government
neglected its duty to apply for a blanket exemption for Canadian companies.
This is the kind of neglect and inaction the government has displayed from the
beginning on the issue. The 2,000 laid off workers in my riding want to know
why the government has put them out of a job.
* * *
Terrorism
Hon. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, three weeks following the tragic terrorist
attacks in the United States on September 11, the religious leadership of
British Columbia gathered together in a call to justice, peace and solidarity
which was delivered to the Prime Minister today. It reads in part as follows:
The attack upon the United States of
America on September 11th, 2001 was calculated to uproot the whole human
family. This horrific affront was intended to make neighbours look upon each
other with suspicion and hatred; to make us abandon our vocation to be united
under God's love. Many people have died, innocent families have been left
vulnerable to bigotry and violence, and a shadow has fallen over our ability to
live together as citizens. |
We affirm that God's justice and
mercy are infinite, surpassing human power in majesty and
perfection. |
We affirm our solidarity as leaders
in diverse faith communities, and urge our brothers and sisters to enrich the
common good with brave new works of peace, mutual understanding and material
assistance. |
We call on all Canadians to join their prayers and
goodwill to guard against prejudice and hatred and to befriend and support each
other.
* * *
[Translation]
National Family Week
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, since 1985, National Family Week has been
celebrated to remind us of the importance of the family and of its constancy as
our primary source of support.
“Volunteering is a family affair. Connect with
kindness” is the theme selected for this week, which is part of the
International Year of Volunteers. The event reminds us of the opportunity we
have to contribute something specific as a family to improve living conditions
in our community through simple, sometimes trivial, but vital
actions.
Let us serve as models of solidarity and help for our
children to create in them the sense of civic duty vital in a fair and just
society. Let us take part in their sports and school events to encourage and
show them we are behind them.
During this National Family Week, let us meet the
challenge of being more generous to those around us who need our help. But most
importantly, let us take the time to join together in pleasure.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
LandMines
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur
(Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the global landmine crisis is one of the
most pervasive problems facing the world today. It is estimated that there are
between 60 million and 70 million landmines in at least 70 countries. Landmines
maim or kill approximately 26,000 civilians each year, including 8,000 to
10,000 children.
On Friday, November 30, 2001, the Canadian Landmine
Foundation and our partner, the United Nations Association of the United States
of America, are calling on our friends to host a dinner for a dozen or so of
their friends, clients and neighbours. People from all walks of life in
countries all over the world will join in the massive event which they are
calling “Night of a Thousand Dinners”.
Funds raised at the dinner will be matched by CIDA in
Canada. All money raised will go directly to clearing mines in the most heavily
mine affected countries in the world. There has been enthusiastic support from
Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Sir
Paul McCartney, to name a few.
It will be easy to host a dinner on November 30. People
can simply visit the 1000 dinners.com website and sign up or contact the
Canadian Landmine Foundation.
* * *
Prostate Cancer
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on June 24 of this year I was one of
several hundred participants in Vancouver's annual run to raise money for
prostate cancer research. For the second year in a row I was sponsored by
members of this place and for the second year in a row the total amount
contributed by MPs, almost $2,300, was the single largest lump sum donated to
the cause.
The organizers of the event wanted me to place on the
record their thanks to those members of parliament from the Liberal Party, the
Canadian Alliance and the NDP who helped fund the research effort to find a
cure for prostate cancer.
On October 30 there will be a PSA testing day on the
Hill, an opportunity for the men who work here to attend an information session
and have the blood test which will check them for the presence of prostate
cancer.
An invitation will be in the mail in the next few days
but members should mark the date on their calendars now. Prostate cancer
information and PSA testing day will be here on the Hill on Tuesday, October
30.
* * *
[Translation]
Marc Gélinas
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this morning we received some very sad
news. Marc Gélinas passed away following a lengthy illness.
Marc Gélinas was an artist with many talents. We knew
him as a singer and songwriter, and through his work in the theatre and
television. As a singer and songwriter, he produced 300 titles, 33 forty-fives,
13 albums and two compact discs. He gave us such well-loved songs as La
Ronde, Aide-toi et le ciel t'aidera and the Montreal Expos theme
song.
As an actor, he made a name for himself in the series
Beau temps, mauvais temps, Les Berger and Kilomètre/heure.
His talent can still be appreciated in the series L'or, which is
currently being broadcast on Radio-Canada.
Marc Gélinas has left us with a rich cultural legacy,
but we share the pain that his friends and family are feeling. On behalf of my
colleagues and myself, I would like to offer them our most sincere
condolences.
* * *
Léo Drolet
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, last Monday we lost one of the Eastern
Townships' great builders when Mr. Léo Drolet, founder of Sherwood-Drolet, one
of the biggest hockey stick makers in the world, died at the age of
82.
The company started up in 1949 with a $5 loan from his
mother, and now sells more than 2.2 million hockey sticks yearly, all over the
world. It is one of the foremost sports equipment manufacturers. Moreover,
several of the top hockey players use made-in-Quebec sticks.
Mr. Drolet was an entrepreneur known for his creativity
and his modesty. His passion for what he did has helped contribute to
modernizing hockey by reinventing the hockey stick.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, and of all the people
in the riding of Sherbrooke, I would like to extend my condolences to the
Drolet family.
* * *
[English]
Human Rights
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in recent years we have all heard about
the war that is being raged by the Taliban on their own women in Afghanistan,
particularly from brave journalists such as Sally Armstrong. We can only
imagine how much worse their situation has become since September
11.
It is estimated that by November 1 there will be 5.5
million Afghans who rely on UN food aid, the majority of whom will be women and
children.
It is easy for us in Canada to see the situation as
hopeless. Canada's National Coalition in Support of Afghan Women has put
together a practical action plan. It contains information on how to put
pressure on governments that support the Taliban, how to help women in
Afghanistan today, how to influence the Taliban and how to promote awareness in
Canada and around the world. The information is available at
www.yorku.ca/iwrp/afghanistan.htm.
One of the most important things we can do is
acknowledge that the protection of human rights should be everyone's
responsibility. It is our hope that whatever new government comes into
Afghanistan, it will strive to vastly improve the position of the women in its
country.
* * *
(1415)
Agriculture
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris,
PC):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the
Canadian Federation of Agriculture and its president, Bob Freisen, for coming
to Parliament Hill today to help raise awareness of the many serious issues
affecting agriculture today.
Much of the recent media attention is focused on the
unfortunate job losses in other industries but fails to mention that there has
been a severe crisis in agriculture and in the agriculture industry over the
past three years.
Many in the House probably do not realize that in the
last year alone agriculture has lost 39,000 workers in the industry. Most may
not realize that the grains and oilseeds sector could lose up to $2 billion
this year because of the devastating drought conditions.
Even though the Liberal government might not recognize
that something more can and should be done to help agriculture, Canadians
do.
According to a June 4 Ekos poll commissioned by the
federal government, 69% of Canadians believe that the government should do
whatever it takes, even if it means paying more taxes to ensure the survival of
the family farm.
It is clear the will of Canadians is there; now it is
up to the political will of this government.
* * *
Member for Halifax
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago today the hon. member for
Halifax was elected to the Nova Scotia legislature as the MLA for her
community, the only woman and the only New Democrat in a sea of
suits.
During her 14 years there, she railed against political
patronage. She successfully championed pay equity, women's and gay rights, and
workplace health and safety legislation. In doing so, she changed the face of
Nova Scotia society.
When she left provincial politics and became leader of
the federal NDP in 1995 she brought with her the same principled toughness, the
same warmth, enthusiasm and commitment to social justice.
She told me recently that not even on her worse day in
her 20 years in public life has she ever wondered why she is doing this.
“Because it needs to be done, because I can make a difference”.
Fearless, outspoken and independent, she has many times
over earned the label the iron angel. The hon. member helps us all to know that
we can make a difference.
On behalf of this caucus, the people of Nova Scotia and
Canada, I want to thank the hon. member for Halifax for being the standard
bearer for social justice, for being the iron angel of Canadian
politics.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Terrorism
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, members of the United States senate have
called on President Bush to triple the number of border guards at the
Canada-U.S. border. The commissioner of the immigration service told congress
just today that the Canadian border is a matter of concern. Both sides agree
with this.
The issues of sovereignty, security and freedom of
movement back and forth across the border can be achieved if we get serious
about the perimeter.
It is now day 22. How much longer will the Prime
Minister take to negotiate a security and perimeter agreement with the United
States?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I discussed that with the president of the
United States and he said that it was very important for Canada and the United
States to make sure the border operates in such a fashion that the goods coming
from Canada to the United States and from the United States to Canada move
freely.
All my ministers have been in touch with their
counterparts in the United States and there is no report of any big
problem.
Of course we want to have security. We said that we
will work with them to make sure we have security in the United States and in
Canada. We will pass laws in Canada for the Canadian territory.
(1420)
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of reports, including from
the U.S. senators, on this, the elected senators I might add.
A number of premiers and business organizations have
called for a continental perimeter policy to be put in place now. This is the
Prime Minister's opportunity for a genuinely non-partisan initiative that would
be applauded by all Canadians.
Will the Prime Minister or his designate convene, as
soon as possible, a non-partisan federal-provincial summit to discuss the
issues of improved security, developing a strong perimeter and
keeping--
The Speaker:
The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one day the Leader of the Opposition is
asking to have more people at the border. The day after he is arguing for less
people at the border. We want to know where he stands.
We want to have a border where the goods can move
freely from one side to the other. That is exactly what the president of the
United States and I discussed and agreed to do.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we have asked the same thing every day,
and that is for some action on any of these initiatives to improve
confidence.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the premiers are asking for the
establishment of a North American security perimeter to guarantee the free
movement of goods and persons, while maintaining maximum security.
Business people and the public are also asking for such
a perimeter. Who then is opposed to the idea of organizing right now a
non-partisan summit to create this security perimeter with our American
neighbours?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have been co-operating for years with
the United States regarding our border. Every year there are people who arrive
at the Canadian border and who are sent back to the United States because they
are undesirable individuals.
Just this morning I read an article that said that
several individuals whom authorities were looking for were turned back at the
Canadian border, because Canada Customs and Revenue Agency employees at the
border did their job. This is how things work. We co-operate with the
Americans.
What do Canadian Alliance members have in mind? Some
days they want more people at the border, while on other days they do not want
anybody. They should make up their minds.
[English]
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in the last 24 hours three people with
Canadian connections have been arrested in Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Massena, New
York; and Mauritania. All three are suspected of having ties to terrorist
organizations that may be connected to the September 11 attacks.
Even though none of the 19 hijackers in the September
11 attack are known to have come from Canada, how can the minister remain
confident that no others in Canada were involved in the plot?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all I can give my hon. colleague are the
facts. There is no evidence directly linking any Canadian to the activities
that took place on September 11.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, there are a few other facts. We have seen
people arrested or detained in Germany. We have seen people arrested in Spain
and in the United Kingdom. We have seen 400 arrested in the United States. We
know that many of the same terrorist organizations are active here in Canada.
With the exception of only one man on a flight bound for Chicago, no one has
been arrested in this country.
Why is it that suspected terrorists known to have been
in this country have been arrested only abroad and not here at home?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, is my hon. colleague disappointed that
there have been no arrests in this country?
The fact is that the RCMP and CSIS work with the FBI. I
discussed the issue yesterday with the attorney general of the United States.
He thanked the government, CSIS and the RCMP for their support in making sure
that North America remains free and democratic, and we will do that.
* * *
(1425)
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, since the September 11 attacks, the Bloc
Quebecois has repeatedly called on the government to come up with an emergency
plan to bolster the economy, to no avail.
Since the government was doing nothing, the Bloc
Quebecois therefore proposed a $5 billion plan to stimulate the economy,
without any deficit.
Since the government will have over $13 billion to play
with by the end of the year, does the Prime Minister intend to consider the
Bloc Quebecois's proposals and quickly adopt a plan to cope with the downturn
in the economy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government is certainly prepared to
consider anything that will help Canadians.
For example, the President of the Treasury Board said
she was open to the idea of accelerating the infrastructure program, if a
suitable arrangement could be worked out with the provinces.
As well, the Minister of Transport said he would help
the airlines.
I can well understand the Bloc Quebecois leader's
desire to help Canadians, but I can assure him that the Canadian government is
taking action.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I see that the Minister of Finance is on
the right track. He himself can apparently see that last year's measures were
not enough.
One need only look at the infusion that is needed for
defence, security and assistance to the airlines.
Last year, the Minister of Finance could not foresee
this year's events, and that is only natural.
Here is what I am asking him to do. Since he has
clearly stepped in with respect to security, defence and assistance for the
airlines, will he consider extending assistance to businesses, helping workers
directly affected by the economic downturn, and sectors other than the airline
industry?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources
Development announced improvements to the employment insurance program. This is
direct assistance to employees.
The member mentioned the $13 billion surplus. He will
have to consider the impact in the third and fourth quarters of this year. I
would love to say that there will be no impact on the surplus, but
unfortunately, such is not the case.
Mr. Yvan Loubier
(Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Minister of Finance, we took
our responsibilities and we did take into account the economic slowdown to
arrive at the result mentioned by our leader.
Does the Minister of Finance realize that 97% of the
companies in Canada are small and medium size businesses and that they create
80% of all the jobs in the country?
Also, will the minister agree that during an economic
slowdown like the one we are currently experiencing, he could take low cost but
effective measures to support small and medium size businesses, which create
80% of all the jobs in Canada, while ruling out the prospect of any deficit for
the current year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are certainly aware of the contribution
made by small and medium size businesses. This is why the taxation level for
these businesses is much lower than for other companies.
This is also why, in the last budget, we improved the
tax system for small and medium size businesses. This being said, I have
already had meetings on this issue, and small and medium size businesses are
the first ones to say that they do not want us to generate another deficit
through spending.
Looking at our figures, one can see that this is
precisely what we want to avoid.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in a difficult time like now, workers and
small and medium size businesses expect the Minister of Finance to be a little
more serious.
Taking into account the budget constraints that he is
facing and without generating a deficit, would the Minister of Finance be
prepared to give a little more oxygen to small and medium size businesses,
which greatly need it right now, by exempting them from making employment
insurance contributions and by following Quebec's example—this is not
costly—and allowing these businesses to postpone until March 31 of next year
the payment of their instalments?
The minister's responsibility is to put some oxygen
into the economy, to support small and medium size businesses and to help the
workers who have lost their jobs or who could lose them.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is suggesting that we do
what we have already done. We lowered taxes for small and medium size
businesses. We helped them but, as I said, they are the first ones to tell us
that they do not want us to go back to a deficit situation generated through
spending.
We are taking action to avoid precisely what the hon.
member is recommending, that is, to go back to a deficit situation. We will not
do that.
* * *
[English]
Airline Industry
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In
times of crisis coalitions should be crucial. The government was quick to join
the international coalition to defeat terrorism, but it has ignored the
coalition of airline workers to deal with the crisis here at home. Early
retirement packages are key to minimizing job losses and worker displacement.
Will the government work with the coalition of airline
workers and support early retirement measures to stabilize the industry today
and avert trained labour shortages tomorrow?
(1430)
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of meeting with union
representatives yesterday. We discussed the issues facing their workers in a
number of different occupations.
We have agreed that the right first step is to ensure
that the employer, the unions and the government are there to talk about the
programs and services that do exist and to make sure they are readily available
to any employees who need them, and we will do just that.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, we desperately need a comprehensive,
co-ordinated approach here. It is not good enough for the government to pass
the buck from department to department or onto the next generation to solve
this problem. We need a co-ordinated response today, if we are going to create
a stable industry tomorrow.
Why are workers being shunted from one minister to
another? If the government can respond to airline executives, it can surely
respond to airline workers.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member. Workers
are not being shunted from one minister to the other.
We met yesterday. The union officials put their case to
me. We will be discussing it, but most important is to ensure that the programs
that do exist are there and readily available to Canadians who need them. We
will ensure that that is the case.
* * *
The Economy
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, another 20,000 layoffs were announced
today. U.S. officials say their country is in recession, yet the Minister of
Finance in Canada refuses to bring in a budget.
Canada is the only country in the G-8 with no budget.
The minister says the situation is too uncertain. The answer to uncertainty is
leadership and the active leadership needed now is the budget this minister has
promised.
Will the Minister of Finance either give us a date
today for a full budget or will he give us a commitment that such a budget will
be introduced before the end of October?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the leader of the
fifth party that the budget in the United States will be delivered in January
2002.
Here the minister has said he is looking at all the
options and there will be a statement by him, as he does every October, on the
state of the economy. If there is a need to change some of our programs and a
budget is needed, there will be one. At this time of uncertainty, it is better
to know all the facts before moving.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PCDR):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister gets more incredible
every day.
We know that the Americans--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker:
Order, please. The right hon. member for Calgary Centre
has the floor.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, he gets more incredible every
day.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker:
Perhaps the right hon. member could assist the Chair by
only repeating his question once. I am able to hear when the noise dies down,
but saying it twice perhaps only provokes a reaction that is
unnecessary.
* * *
Terrorism
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, let me put a question to the Prime
Minister about perimeter policy. We know the Americans are prepared to bargain
seriously to assure security. To get agreements that they need, they have
already dropped sanctions against Sudan, India and Pakistan. Therefore, there
has never been a better time to have Canadian solutions accepted by the Bush
administration, including on how we establish a secure perimeter.
In the three weeks since the terrorist attacks, will
the Prime Minister tell the House what specific proposals Canada has made to
the United States that would secure the perimeter, that would
encourage--
(1435)
The Speaker:
The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat again that it is better
to know all the facts before moving. I remember in 1979, when the hon. member
was the prime minister, he did not know how many members of parliament were in
the House of Commons when we had a vote that caused the defeat of his
government.
I just want to tell the House of Commons that we have
already worked very hard with the Americans on making sure we have security in
North America. Yesterday the solicitor general was in Washington and he was
praised by the attorney general for the work that the RCMP and CSIS are doing.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government is proud of the fact that
it fails to find terrorists and leaves the real work to American police
agencies. Now the Minister of Justice has refused to ask the supreme court to
reconsider its apparent tolerance of foreign terrorists in Canada.
In light of the events of September 11, why has this
minister refused to let the court know how its decisions on terrorism could
threaten the security of all Canadians?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
In fact, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring
to the case of R. v Suresh, which is before the supreme court now, as I
indicated earlier this month, I reconsidered. I looked at the factum that we
submitted in the case of Suresh. I sought the advice of our litigation
committee. I sought the advice of an experienced litigator who argued this case
for us before the court.
The hon. member knows that for the court to even grant
leave to submit new evidence after hearing a case is a rare situation. After
considering all the facts, I concluded--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Provencher.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, instead of showing leadership in the
supreme court, our justice minister simply asked the court to read the
newspapers in order to make its decisions on terrorism.
Since the minister is not willing to voice the security
concerns of Canadians to the supreme court, could the minister at least advise
the House where she stands on the extradition of terrorists who commit
murder?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. member has not
read the factum that the Government of Canada submitted in the case of R. v
Suresh. If he had read it, he would know that we made a compelling case in
relation to the dangers of terrorism and why this country cannot become and
will not become a safe haven for terrorists.
* * *
[Translation]
Employment Insurance
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, as we know, year after year the government
is accumulating billions of dollars in surplus funds in the EI fund.
We have always been told that the surplus was for a
rainy day. That is certainly what is being experienced by the companies and
thousands of employees who have recently experienced job cuts.
Would the Minister of Finance not be well advised to
use a little under $2 billion of that surplus to exempt workers and small and
medium size businesses from having to contribute in November and December, thus
helping them to get through this crisis?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first of all, as the hon. member is well
aware, the surplus in the EI fund is being used for health, for infrastructure
programs, and for job creation.
At the same time, he is equally well aware that the
Minister of Human Resources Development has already announced substantial
improvements to the EI program, precisely in order to help the workers of
Canada.
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in order to counteract the disastrous
effects on thousands of men and women who have been laid off, would the
Minister of Finance not find it appropriate to extend EI benefits by 10 weeks
in order to allow these people time to get themselves on their feet and find
other jobs?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance system is there
now to help Canadians who are facing layoffs. Our annual monitoring and
assessment report indicates that the program is working and working well for
Canadians. The hon. member might be interested to know that only about one in
five Canadians utilizes or exhausts full benefits.
I just want to point out that the system is there
because we have made changes. It will be there for Canadians who are facing
these difficult times, to help support them with income.
* * *
(1440)
Terrorism
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration. Convicted PLO terrorist Mahmoud Mohammad who shot
up an airliner is still in Canada. The case reveals how inept and weak the
Canadian system is. The Liberals railed against this when they were in
opposition and in government they have had eight years to resolve
it.
Is the minister finally going to pay particular
attention to this case to show NATO and the world that Canada is not a safe
haven for terrorists?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concern and
frustration when I read about such cases. Although I cannot discuss individual
cases in the House because of privacy concerns, I can tell him that was exactly
the motivation for bringing forward new legislation that would streamline our
procedures so we could remove individuals more quickly.
While we believe in the rule of law and due process, we
know we can do things faster. However, they voted against the new bill that
would have allowed us to streamline the system which exists today.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the case has dragged on far too long. The
minister can no longer blame the law of the courts. The government is
accountable for the legal context in which the system operates.
Sergio Marchi said that there should be a sense of
urgency rather than simply letting it languish at the bottom of the barrel.
Then, as minister, Marchi did absolutely nothing. The lack of results reveals
the disastrous political choices of the government.
If the minister cannot rid the country of a terrorist,
how can the government claim to remove any security risk?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again that I share the
frustration of all those who believe that it takes too long for us to remove
those people who are unwelcome and unwanted in Canada. If they are criminals or
security risks, we want them out of here but we do have the rule of law. That
is why I proposed new legislation to allow us to streamline our
procedures.
There is one point I want to make. Where we have
evidence that someone poses a risk to Canada, we do have the authority to
detain and arrest, and we do that.
* * *
[Translation]
Employment Insurance
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, young people are often the last to be
hired and the first to be let go when companies lay off employees.
In addition, they have to accumulate more hours to get
employment insurance.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development not
see the current situation as a golden opportunity to eliminate the
discriminatory clauses that hit young people hard?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we do not want
to do anything that encourages young people to fall into the cycle of
employment insurance. Rather we want to make sure that young people have the
opportunity to work. That is why every year, through our youth employment
strategy, we invest over $400 million specifically in young
Canadians.
We know young Canadians want to work and that is the
policy strategy that we will take.
[Translation]
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, all of the minister's fancy words do not
eliminate the discrimination, and when businesses lay off employees, as
seniority is often the deciding factor, young people are all the more
vulnerable.
Could the minister not use the current crisis to reach
out to young people by making the protection of the employment insurance system
more accessible to them and by treating them like all the other workers when
they apply for benefits?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member points out, there are
unique circumstances facing young Canadians. That is why we have programs
specifically directed at Canadian youth to help them with the cycle of no
experience, no work and no work, no experience.
I say again that $400 million is invested every year in
young people in Canada to ensure that they have access to our economy and the
employment opportunities it can provide.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the British government has seized $88
million worth of assets of terrorist organizations. The Prime Minister said we
were doing this two weeks ago. The Minister of Finance said we could do it last
week. The reality is, Canadian financial institutions received effective legal
authority only two days ago to freeze, and not even seize, these
assets.
My question is simple. Why do we still not have the
laws here in Canada to seize the assets of terrorist organizations?
(1445)
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have pointed out before, we do in
fact have the power to seize assets under the United Nations Act. That is found
in section 3(2) of the United Nations Act. If information comes to my attention
as Minister of Justice that assets have been frozen and if that information
links assets to a prohibited or proscribed group, we will begin forfeiture
proceedings in relation to those assets.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will give the Minister of Justice a
grand opportunity right now.
In 1999 the U.S. state department, our immigration
department, our Senate and our justice department said that FACT is a front
that raises funds for the terrorist Tamil Tiger organization LTTE, yet this
group still raises funds here in Canada.
My question for the Minister of Justice is a simple
one. Will the minister place FACT on that list of organizations that are banned
from raising funds here in Canada?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the process is that the governor in
council can add organizations or individuals to the list of proscribed
organizations. If information is brought to our attention in relation to any
organization, we will consider that and we will make a decision on a case by
case basis.
* * *
Foreign Aid
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Pakistan has been home to millions of
refugees from Afghanistan for years. In the aftermath of September 11, there
have been additional demands put on the government of Pakistan to not only
respond to the refugees, but to join the fight against terrorism.
Would the Minister for International Cooperation tell
the House what Canada is doing to help the government of Pakistan deal with the
overwhelming burden of the Afghani refugees and their severe social and
economic situation over the long term?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Afghanistan is faced with an enormous
social and economic crisis. In recognition of the pressure put on the
government of Pakistan to try to accommodate the increased number of refugees
and its co-operation in the coalition against terrorism, the Government of
Canada has agreed to convert the $447 million loan owed to CIDA into social
programs, which will be about $16 million a year. This means that there will be
$16 million a year used in Pakistan to assist in the area of social
programs.
I will be working with the government of Pakistan and
my colleagues to ensure that the money goes to the people. As well, the lifting
of sanctions will allow me to reopen official assistance to
Pakistan.
* * *
The Economy
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Finance.
Nortel has just laid off another 20,000 people, many of
them in this country. That means almost 70,000 Canadians have been laid off
since last spring, including people in the high tech industry, the auto
industry, the airline industry, and in agriculture and other manufacturing and
service jobs.
What is the minister's strategy concerning jobs? How
much more damage to the economy will it take before he brings down a budget?
When he presents that budget to the House, can he tell us whether or not jobs
and putting Canadians back to work will be the government's
priority?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that jobs are the number
one priority. That is why the first thing we did when we came to office was put
in place a plan that would bring the unemployment rate down from 11.5% to where
it is now.
The fact is that jobs continue to be the number one
priority. That is why we proceeded to clean up the balance sheets, which is why
we have enabled the Bank of Canada to bring down interest rates, which is why
we have cut taxes, which is why we have invested in research and development,
and which is why we will continue on that path.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, 70,000 people in this country are out of
work since last June and the number is rising every day. In addition interest
rates are plummeting. The bank rate is now at a 29 year low. Despite that,
millions of Canadians are paying an interest rate of almost 18% on their credit
cards and they are not in a position to renegotiate that charge.
The Prime Minister is saying that people should spend
some money. Will the Minister of Finance instruct the banks in Canada to get
their credit card rates in line with the falling bank rate? Will he ask the
banks to do their part and try to stimulate the Canadian economy?
(1450)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the banks moved immediately on the
reduction in interest rates. We have seen mortgage rates come down
dramatically. What is very important is that we maintain the fiscal integrity
of the country because that is what enables the Bank of Canada to bring
interest rates down. It is what enables the banks to bring interest rates
down.
We are in the middle of a global slowdown. It is very
important that we protect Canadians through the downturn and that we be in a
position to lead the recovery when it comes.
* * *
Trade
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants,
PC):
Mr. Speaker, the security of our perimeter is Canada' s
number one economic issue. Canada's trade with the U.S. is currently around
$400 billion per year. Canada cannot afford to be outside of a fortress
America.
Provincial premiers and business leaders are taking the
lead on this issue. Why is the federal government not doing more to ensure the
security of our perimeter and to ensure that Canadian exporters are not left
out in the cold?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact the government started
work on the question of customs and the volume it faced within a global area a
long time ago. Back in 1995 the government signed a shared border agreement
with the United States in order to ensure that we keep that land border open
for trade.
As a matter of fact a year and a half ago the
government tabled a brand new reform which brings a brand new vision to
customs, Bill S-23. I will be present at the finance committee tonight in order
to ensure that vision, which is a balanced approach to offering Canadian
society security as well as keeping trade open on the land border. This is what
the government wants to do.
* * *
Agriculture
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris,
PC):
Mr. Speaker, according to the most recent Statistics
Canada figures, the agriculture industry has lost 39,000 jobs this past year.
That is 39,000 jobs. That is the largest single labour force reduction in all
industries in the goods producing sector. Other industries have lost jobs as
well.
The Minister of Industry, the Minister of Transport and
the Minister of Human Resources Development are paying lip service to the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Why is the minister of agriculture so
complacent when it comes to 39,000 jobs lost in the agriculture
industry?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will remind the hon. member again that
with the safety net programs between the federal and provincial governments,
the program payments to agriculture producers this year will be the highest
they have been in a long time. They will be over $4 billion. That will
certainly help our agriculture industry.
* * *
National Security
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government shows its weakness even in
setting up a so-called security committee. The terrorist threat of
contamination of water supplies or the spread of deadly viruses is very real.
Yet the federal health minister will be absent from the table even though these
health concerns are of critical importance to Canadians.
Why is he not a key member of the new cabinet security
committee?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member should understand that
ministers on this side of the House work very closely together. I will be
working with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and all of my cabinet colleagues.
As a result of the horrific events of September 11 all governments are looking
very critically at their capacity to respond to attacks, the nature of which
were hitherto unimaginable.
The government is very much aware of that
responsibility. Health Canada is on the team. We are working hard to make sure
Canada will be prepared for whatever happens.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a matter of priorities.
Canada's provincial health ministers are way out in front of the government.
They are already working on their own emergency response plans. The U.S.
secretary of health recently made a televised appearance to assure that his
department is ready and prepared to respond to a chemical or biological
terrorist attack. Yet our Minister of Health is not even on Canada's new
security committee. The question is, if this is such a high priority issue, why
is he not on the committee?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in July 2000 Health Canada opened its new
Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, led by Dr. Ron St. John, who
has an international reputation for expertise in this area.
For the last 18 months he has been building and
strengthening Canada's capacity to be ready for whatever might befall the
country. We learned on September 11 a lot more has to be done and very quickly.
Last week with the provincial ministers we agreed as a matter of priority to
look at a list of things that must be undertaken immediately.
Health Canada is on the job. This minister is on the
team. The job will be done.
* * *
(1455)
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
(Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the events of September 11 have affected
specific sectors of the economy, vital sectors such as aviation, tourism and
air and road transportation.
Will the Minister of Industry acknowledge that his
government has a responsibility to support these sectors, which were hit
hardest by the events of September 11?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have had questions on the economy today
which to my mind have not been realistic. There have been questions in essence
asking the Minister of Finance if that minister is responsible for a downturn
in the economy worldwide. We know we have a powerful, persuasive and excellent
Minister of Finance, but surely nobody would blame a downturn worldwide on one
minister in Canada.
We are doing our jobs. We have positioned Canada well.
We will ride out the storm. We will recover quickly because we have made the
right decisions.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
(Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the public expects the government to do
just that, its job.
In an economic downturn, businesses often cut their
investments, especially in research and development.
Does the minister not think that it would be a good
idea to establish tax incentives to encourage or speed up investment that
otherwise might be put off?
Some hon. members: Oh, Oh.
[English]
The Speaker:
Order, please. It is very difficult to hear. There seem
to be a lot of conversations going on at once.
[Translation]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of French professors on
the other side of the House.
[English]
I appreciate all the help I have been
getting.
The Government of Canada will bring forward a budget in
good time. That budget will continue to build on the future of the country. As
we have said over and over, as important as the security issue is today in this
country, it is important to continue to invest in Canada's economy. The member
will see that we are going to do exactly that.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. ambassador says that Canada may
be asked to fill in for American troops leaving the Balkans. The defence
minister was bragging yesterday, in an open letter in fact, that the Canadian
forces are in great shape and that there is no need for concern.
Will the minister please tell the House, if asked by
the Americans for assistance, where is he going to get the 2,500 troops, which
is well within the government's own white paper commitments?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, whatever the United States has asked of us
in this campaign on terrorism we have delivered on. We have put additional jet
fighters into the NORAD system. We have been providing valuable assistance in
terms of intelligence gathering and analysis. We have given the Americans the
wide array of capabilities that we have. They know what capabilities we have.
We are in discussions with them as to what role we might play.
The hon. member mentioned the American ambassador. What
he forgot was the bottom line of his speech yesterday when the American
ambassador said, “Whenever we have asked, the Canadian government has stepped
up to the plate. I have no complaints”.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the American ambassador has indicated that
Canada may well be asked again to step up to the plate. What I want to find out
from the minister is where is he going to come up with the 2,500 troops which
is still well within the government's own white paper commitments? Where is he
going to get the people from?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have not heard the United States talk
about any particular number. The Americans have not asked us for any specific
number of troops. The member has it wrong. Again, we have said that we are
going to be a key part of the campaign against terrorism in a number of
different ways, not all of them military. If we are asked to step up to the
plate, we will be there.
* * *
Immigration
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in a September 26 CBC radio interview the
minister of immigration said she had given the order to do indepth security
screening of entrants. She said this had begun and that they had not waited for
Bill C-11.
Could the minister of immigration tell us, since Bill
C-11 has not passed, under what or whose authority she is acting?
(1500)
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, after the events of September 11 I
instructed my department to intensify security screening at our ports of entry.
This was purely an operational matter within the legislative scope that is
available under the current law, requiring no new legislative
authority.
While the current law does have grounds to bar access
to the refugee determination system, it does require multiple steps and poses
significant delays. That is why with Bill C-11 we have streamlined so that
those who are eligible to make a claim will be identified--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland
Valleys.
* * *
Multiculturalism
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson
and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister would not
apologize for the thousands of dollars spent sponsoring a conference that
became a venue for a hate speech. He said the organizations receiving the
funding helped abused women and children.
How does the hate filled, anti-American, anti-male rant
help abused women and children?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again that these types of
conferences are very useful in Canada and we will not stop having social
dialogue in our nation because someone made a terrible speech that we condemn
one hundred per cent.
In Canada we have to have meetings of that nature and
we still--
Mr. Vic Toews:
But we don't have to pay for them.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien:
Yes, and that person was there but the minister was
invited and she made a good speech on what the government is doing on that. We
had Senator Pearson there. She is a very well known advocate for children and
even Madam Justice Arbour was there, so--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland
Valleys.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson
and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government is using tax dollars to
fund special interest groups that undermine Canadian principles. We saw 80,000
of those tax dollars at work at the women's resistance conference.
Would the money funding hate speeches against western
civilization not be better spent on the safety and security of
Canadians?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this was a three day conference. It was a
conference that spanned: there were academics there; there were people from 10
other countries there; there were people who had done long term work on this.
There were people who had done groundwork and the grassroots people who have
been doing the clinics every day.
The questions of women's equality, of sexual
exploitation of children, of women's economic status, of violence against women
and of the criminal justice system, these were supposed to come up with a
report that would assist in good policy and program development.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker:
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in
the gallery of His Excellency Makram Obaid, Minister of Transport of
Syria.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
(1505)
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation among House
leaders. I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent for
the following. I move:
|
That,
the first item to be considered under Government Orders on Thursday, October 4,
2001, shall be a motion by the Leader of the Government in the
House |
|
That
the Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the
Procedures of the House of Commons, tabled on Friday, June 1, 2001, be
concurred in, provided that the proposed amendment therein to Standing Order
52(13) shall be amended by deleting the words 'of his or her party' and that
the recommendations of the Report shall come into force, as amended, on the
Monday following the adoption of this Order; and |
|
That,
at 4:00 p.m. on October 4, 2001, or when no Member rises to speak, whichever is
earlier, the said motion shall be deemed adopted. |
The Speaker:
Does the hon. government House leader have unanimous
consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker:
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed
to)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Government Response to
Petitions
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to
two petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
Committees of the
House
Justice and Human
Rights
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting, in both
official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights.
[English]
Pursuant to its order of reference of Wednesday,
September 26, 2001, the committee has considered Bill C-15, an act to amend the
criminal code and to amend other acts, and has agreed to report that it has
been divided into two bills.
* * *
Petitions
Falun Gong
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that I would like to
present to the House today. It is from the Falun Gong-Falun Dafa organizations
across the country. A number of constituents from my riding and surrounding
Edmonton are calling on parliament to form part of Canada's SOS!Rescue Team to
basically go to China and insist that the torturing and killing of the people
who practise Falun Gong and Falun Dafa stop, and that all Falun Gong
practitioners and Lin Shenli be freed now.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore,
PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from different
groups. One is a petition from people in Shelburne County on Bill C-23 from the
36th parliament. They would like to petition on the clarification of
marriage.
* * *
Volunteer
Firefighters
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, the other petitions, with a couple of
hundred names on them, are from the rural fire departments in different areas
of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The petitions concern the $1,000 tax
deduction that the federal 1999 budget promised and offered to paid
firefighters but did not give to volunteer firefighters, which most people
consider to be very unfair.
On behalf of volunteer firefighters in Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick, I am very pleased to bring this petition to your
attention.
* * *
(1510)
VIA Rail
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present another petition, a
petition that now has been signed by thousands of people from the Peterborough
area who would like to see VIA Rail service restored between Toronto and
Peterborough.
These petitioners see great environmental advantages in
the restoration of service: reduction in greenhouse emissions; improvement in
health from the reduction in highway emissions; a reduction of highway
accidents; and a great improvement in the business environment not only of
Peterborough but of the GTA.
These petitioners are delighted at the response of our
Minister of Transport to the announcement that Queen's Park will reinvest in
municipal transportation.
* * *
Land Titles
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to present a
petition on behalf of the people of Skeena regarding sovereignty of land title
for citizens of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
Questions on the order
paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the 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.
* * *
[English]
Motions for Papers
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of
Papers No. P-8, in the name of the hon. member for Calgary Centre, is
acceptable to the government with the reservations stated in the reply and the
documents are tabled immediately.
That an Order of this House do issue
for copies of all documentation, including briefings, memoranda, e-mails and
minutes relating to the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Business
Development Bank of Canada of June 2, 1999. |
The Speaker:
Subject to the reservations expressed by the
parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Motion No. P-8 be
deemed to have been adopted?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed
to)
Mr. Geoff Regan:
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining Notices of
Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[Translation]
Courts Administration Service
Act
The House resumed from October 1 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-30, an act to establish a
body that provides administrative services to the Federal Court of Appeal, the
Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada, to
amend the Federal Court Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Judges Act,
and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the act to establish
a body that provides administrative services to the Federal Court of Appeal,
the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of
Canada.
One of the key principles underlying our legal system
is that of the independence of the judiciary. The courts must contemplate this
principle, the purpose of which is to reinforce our free and democratic
system.
The same principle applies to the courts. They must be
able to exercise their mandate of interpreting laws without being subjected to
undue political pressure. That is one of the purposes of this bill.
What is judicial independence? To begin with, it must
not be confused with judicial impartiality. Impartiality is different from
independence in that the impartiality has to do with arriving at decisions
which are neutral, without prejudice, based solely on the facts presented at
trial. Impartiality means that the trial judge will not hand down a ruling
based on subjective impressions, but solely on the facts and the testimony
presented in court.
While impartiality is exercised vis-à-vis the
defendant, judicial independence is exercised vis-à-vis the executive and
legislative arms of the government. Judicial independence is necessary so that
pressure from the government does not interfere, or appear to interfere, with
court rulings.
Should a reasonable observer be able to conclude that
pressure has been brought to bear, that would be enough for there to be the
appearance of interference in judicial independence. The same observer could
thus conclude that judicial impartiality has been tainted through government
pressure, whether or not such is the case. That is why it is important to
ensure that the body which provides administrative services to courts under
federal jurisdiction leaves the judicial body free of any form of
interference.
Many rulings have reached this conclusion. In Tobiass v
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and Dueck v Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the appearance of
judicial independence must not be tainted.
In addition, the court held that judicial independence
has an institutional aspect and a personal aspect. The supreme court emphasized
that the judiciary should not only remain independent in fact, but that it
should be seen to remain independent. Once again, the key test is what a
reasonable observer would perceive.
This objective test means that any reasonable person
must be able to conclude that judges are free to hand down decisions without
any possibility of interference from the government or from other judges. That
is what is important in this bill and what should be important in all the
government's bills: protection against government interference.
In the preface to the Canadian Judicial Council annual
report for 1996, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Antonio Lamer wrote that
“the quality of their future depends on the existence of a judiciary system
based on honesty, impartiality and independence”.
Honesty and impartiality are only possible when there
is independence. Independence is the basic element which keeps our judiciary
free of vice and interference.
For some years now, the bench has been calling for an
administrative body to support the judiciary system, rather than the opposite.
For some years now, the judiciary has been stressing that independence is
possible only if there is an absolute appearance of impartiality and honesty.
There must be a clear separation between the bench and government pressures. An
organizational format would have to be put in place to truly separate the
administrative and the decision making aspects.
Judicial independence requires the depoliticization of
the judiciary and must clearly demonstrate that there can be no pernicious
interference by government. Once again, the reasonable person criterion must be
applied.
At the international congress of the Canadian Council
of Administrative Tribunals, held in Quebec City this past June, Justice Claire
L'Heureux-Dubé confirmed the need for judicial independence and emancipation of
the courts from political power. This is evidence that this bill is more than
essential.
(1515)
Justice L'Heureux-Dubé made it clear that there must be
an increased perception of independence, and each judge must be protected from
undue pressures. These are fundamental principles that must be not just
respecte, but also reinforced by the creation of an independent administrative
structure.
This principle is international. At the same congress,
an American, Judge Edwin L. Felter Jr., President of the National Conference of
Administrative Law Judges, said:
Judiciary independence is not for the
good of the judges, but for the good of the public, who expect judges to be
fair and impartial, and to reach their decisions without
constraint. |
We confer a power of interpretation upon our judges. We
must respect that power and therefore must provide them with the necessary
tools to achieve those objectives. I repeat, there must be no interference of
any kind in this decision making process which must be based on the facts.
The only obligation judges have toward government is to
carry out their duties in a highly professional manner in keeping with their
mandate.
For a judge to act in a highly professional manner, he
must not be distracted from his mandate, which is to interpret the law
according to the facts with which he is presented. To that end, the judiciary
must also be freed up from any administrative and budgetary tasks. Any
financial control over the judiciary might lend the appearance that there was
interference.
As I stated earlier, we have given judges the power to
interpret, and it is up to us, as parliamentarians, to provide them with the
tools required to carry out this difficult task. An administrative body must
therefore free judges from any restrictions and provide them with both the
functional and institutional freedom needed to accomplish what they are
appointed to do: hand down enlightened rulings without any
interference.
One of the objectives of this bill is to enhance
accountability for the use of public moneys. Once again, the notion of
transparency is essential to the public's perception of our judicial
system.
The criterion of accountability assures us that judges
will appear more independent. The fact that it is the chief administrator who
will be held accountable distances the judges from any apparent source of
influence.
In short, the implementation of elements that
strengthen the fundamental principles of judicial independence is seen as
desirable and necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the courts and the
entire judicial system.
Anything that helps ensure judges' freedom in ruling is
desirable and necessary. Anything which helps eliminate interference or the
appearance of interference is not only desirable, but essential and paramount.
The government has no right to interfere here or elsewhere.
We must provide the judicial system with the necessary
tools to ensure the fair and democratic protection of our rights.
All I can add at this point is that the only problem
there may be with this bill is with the appointment of the chief administrator.
I believe that it would be better if it were an elected position and the
criteria could be established by parliament.
(1520)
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief comment on Bill C-30,
formerly Bill C-40. It is a bill, as members will know, to establish a body to
provide administrative services to the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal
Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada.
The principal goal of the legislation, as I understand
it, is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of
these courts while at the same time preserving the appropriate balance between
judicial independence and financial accountability.
I understand that pursuant to a seminal case on
judicial independence known as Valente v The Queen, the Supreme Court of Canada
itself has indicated that the proposed structure satisfies in its mind the
constitutional test for institutional independence, because this would
certainly be one of the concerns people might have about the
legislation.
The legislation follows again, as I understand it, upon
the recommendation of a former auditor general who had recommended a complete
merger of the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada as a means to address
the administrative inefficiencies he identified but the government decided not
to go this far. In my judgment it was probably right in not listening totally
to the recommendations of the auditor general.
I might say in this context that I sometimes find, as I
have said in the past, that the auditor general goes beyond what is required
and goes much farther down the road in policy making and policy recommendation
than I feel the auditor general ought to. I find it is often the case that the
auditor general's office not only identifies inefficiencies or problems but
then goes on to make recommendations, almost like an independent policy
think-tank. I have had correspondence with previous auditors general on this
but I do not want to grind that particular political axe this
afternoon.
All I want to say is that although the bill is lengthy
in terms of how much paper it consumes, the idea is pretty simple. The sooner
we get this to committee and deal with it the better.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I noted the comments of the member for
Winnipeg--Transcona in reference to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in
Valente v The Queen and, of course, the more recent decision that some of my
constituents referred to, when I was in provincial politics,as the case of the
judges paying the judges, that is,the establishment of an independent
constitutional authority that would require not simply government, be it order
in council or parliament, paying judges but actually judges making sure that
judges get paid. That was the classification that my constituents put that case
into. That case as well talked about institutional independence of the courts.
While I generally support the bill, my concern is that
as we move to the institutional independence of the courts, including
administrative independence, how do we ensure accountability? We, as members of
parliament, and the Minister of Finance are accountable to the taxpayers for
the decisions that we make in respect of the running of a department. Whether
there are defence issues or health issues, ultimately we are
accountable.
My concern is if we simply hand over administrative
independence to the courts. I realize the bill does not quite go that far but
we are clearly going down that road and we have to tackle the issue. Who will
then call the courts to account for misspent money or inefficiencies?
We read in the auditor general's report that there are
many unused courts now. The reference was that in the federal court system
around 35% to 40% of the courts are being used. Therefore on any given day over
60% of our courtrooms are unused. One can only think of all the expenses
involved in unused courtrooms.
I know, for example, from my provincial experience and
my involvement in the justice system, that courts were open one hour a day and
then shut and the judge gone; then other courts were backed up because that
court had too many cases.
The real issue is not that we do not want independence
for the court so that justice is done in particular cases, but if we simply
hand over money to the courts to run the courts, how do we ensure that
accountability?
I wonder whether the member has any issues or comments
that he could make in that respect.
(1525)
Mr. Bill Blaikie:
Madam Speaker, the member for Provencher raises a good
question. If I recall correctly, it is a question that he, in a former
incarnation, had to deal with, or at least the government that he was part of
had to deal with. I recall, and I hope correctly, the controversy in Manitoba
when there was a decision by the provincial government of the day, I believe it
was the Conservative government, with respect to the remuneration of judges,
and there was a case which followed from that having to do with the
independence of the judiciary. I believe that is the case to which the member
is referring.
This is a genuinely tough question and I do not pretend
to have the answers. Do we create an administrative and categorical enclave in
which there is no accountability in the name of judicial independence? Having
done that in the past to some extent, what claim can government or the larger
society make on courts if we feel that they are being underused or the money is
not being spent wisely? How do we do that without being open to the charges
that the Manitoba government was open to at the time and which led to that
court case?
Perhaps having the bill go to the justice committee
might be an opportunity to hear some witnesses on this very difficult question,
not so much by way of seeking amendment to this particular bill, although that
might flow from it, but it certainly might be an occasion, not for lengthy
hearings or anything, to hear some evidence on this very difficult question. I
agree with the hon. member that in fact it is a difficult question.
(1530)
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, Bill C-30 is a fairly large and
cumbersome bill. It is one that deals with a number of technical changes that
touch on the establishment of a body to provide administrative services to the
Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada. The
bill essentially deals with amendments to the Federal Court Act, the Tax Court
of Canada Act and the Judges Act and consequential amendments that flow from
them.
The bill, although procedural and voluminous, is one
that is important. It is one that has to occur to attempt to streamline a very
complex system that is already in place. It is an attempt to consolidate the
current administrative services of the Federal Court of Canada, the Court
Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada into a single administrative
service.
The legislation comes about as a result of a number of
triggering mechanisms, including, as mentioned previously, the auditor
general's steady, guiding hand in influencing this action from occurring as
well as the court case of Valente v The Queen.
The attempt here is obviously to strike the age old
balance of judicial independence and achieving a certain level of service. The
Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative coalition supports the
legislation. It is one that requires a great deal of attention to detail and
perhaps, most appropriately, that will occur at the justice committee.
The previous two speakers have alluded to the fact that
there will be an opportunity at committee to delve into the details because
time and time again we are reminded that the devil is often in the details. The
justice department has, on many occasions, been renowned for bringing in
legislation that has this large pith and substance to it. When one takes the
time to examine it, there are often nuggets of change that are quite
substantial and that sometimes get lost in the forest and do not appear so
readily when one looks at a bill of this size at first glance.
Some of the other amendments that will come about as a
consequence deal with federal statutes, such as the Judges Act, the Access to
Information Act, Canada Elections Act, Corrections and Conditional Release Act,
Employment Insurance Act, Extradition Act, Immigration Act, Income Tax Act,
defence and privacy, to name but a few. One can quickly glean that the bill has
incredible reach. It touches on a number of existing statutes. The changes
themselves, although administrative in nature, are quite
substantial.
The court shall consist of at least two divisions: the
Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court trial division. These changes
that deal with the way in which the courts currently conduct themselves will
have a significant impact.
My friend from Provencher and my friend from
Winnipeg--Transcona talked about judicial independence and the salaries that
are tied to it. The debate about judges having the capacity to set their own
rates of pay is a debate that has been very interesting and often emotionally
driven. To add controversy to that, legislation passed last spring will now tie
in any future changes to the salary structure of members of parliament. Our
salaries will be impacted by the rate of pay that judges receive. That can lead
to an entire debate in and of itself.
Suffice it to say that the true intent behind giving
judges a salary and setting their salary separate from the political process is
to avoid any real or perceived interference from outside sources, be they
political or, in a more nefarious way, I would argue, although some might
suggest that the political influence can be just as nefarious, organized crime.
There has been ample evidence that organized crime is
on the rise. It has reared its ugly head in many cities and towns throughout
the country.
(1535)
It is presenting itself time and again in a very
aggressive way as we saw recently in the city of Halifax where the Hell's
Angels opened a storefront operation, advertising in bright fluorescent lights
their presence in the city.
There was legislation before the House in recent months
that attempted to aid police in the difficult task of combating organized
crime. There is a lot more to do in that regard. The resources, the training
and the sophistication used by organized crime elements have to be motivation
enough for us to step up every effort to give our law enforcement agents every
bit of help in terms of resource support and legislative support.
Bill C-30 is very much in its purpose the pith and
substance to keep the judiciary separate from that type of influence. Organized
crime is not beyond attempting to influence the decisions of judges. It is not
beyond any sort of act that is intended to destabilize or to bring the
administration of justice into disrepute.
We have seen bold new efforts and aggressive acts on
the part of organized crime. One could even make the leap to say that terrorism
is in and of itself a more sophisticated and often a more philosophically
driven form of organized crime. The results are staggering.
We are still reeling from the effects of September 11.
The seriousness is there to underline the necessity of giving judges complete
impartiality. That is a very difficult task indeed. Their financial
compensation and salaries are often a way in which interference and influence
can be exerted.
The coalition supports the legislation. We feel that it
is necessary to bring about the changes, particularly in the area of the Judges
Act where in recent years growing concerns were brought to bear about the
increased elements of interference and influence.
Salaries for judges in the Federal Court are now tied
to a schedule. No one would suggest for a minute that they are undercompensated
when one compares those salaries to others working in the private sector. If we
are to attract the best and the brightest and those individuals most capable of
administrating and administering law in the country, those salaries must be
commensurate with the ability. That has to be the number one priority in terms
of the selection of judges and ensuring that we get the best people on the
bench.
The other sections of the act to which I have referred
that impact the Elections Act and Corrections and Conditional Release Act deal
with changes that are meant to streamline and bring about greater efficiency in
the administration of those acts.
The Extradition Act deals with a clause wherein the
Federal Court and the court of appeal in the province in which the committal of
a person was ordered have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine
applications for judicial review under the act made in respect of a decision of
the minister pursuant to section 40.
There is a change where the court of appeal may grant
relief under a section of the act on the grounds that a trial division or a
Federal Court of Canada also grants relief.
All these interconnected and related sections of the
numerous acts are covered under Bill C-30. It is one that took a great deal of
time and effort to prepare. We are looking forward to having an equal
opportunity at the justice committee to review the work of the justice
department. I am sure we can present and advance the very best legislation
possible.
(1540)
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian
Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the
hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. As a member of the bar he
understands very well how the judicial system operates and how various justice
and court arrangements are made.
Would he agree with Alex Macdonald, either the
solicitor general or the attorney general for the province of B.C. who is now
retired? He wrote an exposé of what happened in the Canadian justice system. At
the beginning of his book he makes a very strong indictment against the justice
system. He goes so far as to say that Canada does not have a justice system; it
has a legal system.
He describes how one court is loaded with all kinds of
cases. There is such a backlog that they cannot get the physical time in court
even if the judge and court space were available. Yet there is an empty court
right next door where nothing is happening. Cases cannot be expedited simply
because of a lack of space.
Does the hon. member feel that this legislation might
actually help to speed up the justice system so that cases can be heard before
juveniles become adults?
Mr. Peter MacKay:
Madam Speaker, I have not had the pleasure of reading
Mr. Macdonald's book. It is something I should do. He makes the point that
there is a pressing need in the country to have sufficient judges and
courtrooms as well as physical space to hear cases.
The issue of backlogs, whether they be in the justice
system for adults or juveniles, is a huge problem. When I worked as a crown
attorney we encountered that difficulty many times, particularly as it
pertained to charges that proceeded by indictment and resulted in jury trials.
The backlog often resulted in a waiting period of two years. In the life of a
young person two years severely undermines the ability to bring about the
requisite deterrence and rehabilitative efforts.
I have concerns about the system as it currently
operates. There is an effort in the bill to streamline and to ensure that
judges are appointed in a timely fashion, to paraphrase the Minister of Justice
and her favourite characterization.
I also believe that there is a huge problem looming
with respect to the youth criminal justice act. We could be building new
courtroom facilities and appointing judges. Yet there is a bill currently in
the other place that is more complicated than the Income Tax Act. It is so
convoluted, cumbersome, unmanageable and unenforceable that it will be an
administrative nightmare. The local bar associations around the country are
licking their lips in anticipation of that legislation passing.
On the one hand the government through the bill is
attempting to streamline justice. On the other hand the justice department has
produced Bill C-7 in an attempt to replace the Young Offenders Act, which will
gum up the system.
The hon. member is exactly right. We will have young
people who will be ready to collect their pensions before they will have made
it through the youth justice system. It is rather incongruous that the justice
department can work at such cross purposes at times and in essence leave the
justice system cross threaded to the detriment of Canadians.
(1550)
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I appreciated the comments made by the
member of the coalition. I am pleased to participate in the discussion
regarding Bill C-30, the courts administration service act.
The bill would consolidate the administrative services
of the Federal Court of Canada, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax
Court of Canada into a single courts administration service. It would create
the position of chief administrator of the courts administrative service. The
bill would also create a separate federal court of appeal and change the status
of the tax court to that of a superior court.
Bill C-30 is the government's response to the 1997
report of the auditor general entitled “Report on the Federal Court of Canada
and the Tax Court of Canada”. The report reviewed the possible regionalization
and or merger of the Federal Court's trial division and the Tax Court of Canada
as well as the consolidation of their administrative support services. The
report also presented the results of an audit of the registry services of the
two courts.
The member for Winnipeg--Transcona indicated that he
had some concerns about the auditor general moving into what he classified as a
policy initiative. I welcome that kind of initiative by a public servant. It
gives members of the House a clearly laid out plan and suggestion. Ultimately
it would always be up to members of the House to determine whether or not we
would accept that policy recommendation.
Bill C-30 enacts only the report's recommendation to
consolidate the administrative services of the two courts, although it may be
viewed by some as a first step toward an eventual total merger.
The arguments in favour of the proposed consolidation
of the administrative services in Bill C-30 appear to be reasonable and sound
calculations. The main concern articulated by the auditor general was that
significant improvements were needed in the area of court registry cost
effectiveness.
Among the existing problems cited were poor planning of
facilities, lack of information technology and the fact that the supply of
courtrooms exceeded the combined needs of both the federal court and the tax
court.
With respect to the excess of courtrooms available, the
auditor general simply noted what most members of the bar have been stating for
years. His affirmation of this in the report was an important step which we can
now use to proceed.
The report examined the physical facilities of both
courts to determine whether they were being planned or used in an effective
manner. The conclusion of the auditor general was that the two courts had an
oversupply of courtrooms and that the actual use of courtrooms was low. The
Federal Court's rate of use of its own courtrooms was about 21% based on data
from 1993 to 1995.
(1555)
Other users account for about 16% of overall use and
total use amounts to only 36% of total availability. The tax court's use of its
own courtrooms is slightly higher at 35% to 38% and total use ranges between
37% and 41%.
If we were any kind of a private business that needed
to account to shareholders for efficiencies, our shareholders would have this
board of directors out on its ears. We are in fact accountable but not just to
shareholders. We are accountable to the voters of Canada. This kind of glaring
problem staring us in the face demands action.
Again it illustrates the concern that I voiced earlier.
I have no problem with the consolidation of courtrooms and administrators and
the like to improve efficiencies. My concern, which I see as an apparently
inevitable road that we will go down, arises as we move toward the independent
administration of the courts by judges. As the members responsible for taxpayer
dollars, how do we ask judges to account if we turn this over to
them?
Looking at the rate of use now, I think most judges
would say we would not have much trouble trying to beat that record. Therefore,
we as parliamentarians, and specifically the Liberal government, have done
nothing to encourage efficiency in that respect. That may be a good reason for
saying that the government has done nothing to encourage efficiency and that
the courts should do it. I have a better plan which involves this side of the
House sitting in the government benches, but that will have to wait for a
number of years.
The auditor general's report claims that consolidation
of courtrooms and registry offices could yield major savings, perhaps $1
million just in leasing expenses. The auditor general further estimates that
millions of dollars of possible savings could be gained if all recommended
changes within the report were implemented.
Let us take a brief look at the report's specific
recommendations to consolidate the administrative services to the Federal Court
of Canada, Trial Division and the Tax Court of Canada.
The report recommends the consolidation of corporate
services for the court registries, estimating the savings at $600,000 per year.
The report states that consolidation could greatly facilitate improved planning
and use of resources, as well as increase the opportunity to plan for federal
judicial centres that would meet the needs of the courts, federal boards and
tribunals.
Of course many of the issues reviewed in the auditor
general's report are not new to the two courts being considered. Many of the
recommendations of the auditor general have been previously endorsed by the
courts.
As part of a government wide series of program reviews
in 1994, the Federal Court undertook a review of its activities. The Federal
Court's program review recommended that the government consider consolidation
of judicial responsibilities presently held by different courts and different
tribunals.
The Federal Court's program review suggested that the
government also explore amalgamation of the Federal Court with the tax court
and opportunities where by responsibilities of boards and commissions could be
dealt with more appropriately, by a trial court for example.
The tax court also recommended to the government a
possible consolidation of corporate services among the Supreme Court of Canada,
the Federal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada, as well as
quasi-judicial commissions, boards and tribunals.
(1600)
They believe a consolidation could eliminate
duplication of work and harmonize policies and procedures in areas such as
personnel, finance, security, administration and information
technology.
Although the bill only proposes to consolidate the
administrative services of the two courts, a move which would not face much
opposition from each court, I would suggest, as I stated earlier, it may be
viewed by some as the first step toward a total merger of the courts.
While consolidation of the administrative services of
the courts as outlined in the bill is a reasonable solution to the many
problems articulated by the auditor general, a total merger of the courts is a
far more contentious issue. The tax court and legal counsel appearing before
that court are known to be strongly opposed to a merger. Those employed by the
tax court believe that the efficiency of the court would be lost in a merger
and maintain that the hearing of tax cases requires a specialized
court.
The tax court indeed has highly specialized judges and
it is seen as efficient and effective by the lawyers who appear before
it.
The tax court also maintains that most of the
significant problems in registry services are related to the Federal Court and
not the tax court. It argues that there would be increased delays in hearing
tax cases if the tax court merged with the Federal Court. Furthermore, the
judges of the tax court joined the court with the understanding that they would
deal primarily with tax matters. They may view a merger that requires them to
deal with other matters as a breach of that understanding.
Tax counsel have stated that at a minimum judges
experienced in tax law are needed to hear cases and that if the courts are
merged a separate tax division should be established. I do not think that is a
radical suggestion. We have done that with other superior courts in the area of
provincial superior courts. For example, we would have a general court of
justice and then a specialized family law division. I do not see as being a
negative thing. Indeed, I think we could respect that specialization and yet
still have the flexibility of ensuring that the courts and the courtrooms are
used more effectively.
However, many of the counsel also maintain that tax
court judges are already working at full capacity, so in their case they argue
productivity is not an issue as has been suggested by some may be the case in
the Federal Court.
Currently the administrative services of the various
courts are independent of each other. The bill creates the position of a chief
administrator who would have the rank and status of a deputy head of a
department, creating another layer of government, and that is a
concern.
Furthermore, the chief justice of the tax court, when
he reviewed the auditor general's report, did not agree with all of the
calculations that indicated the need for increased cost effectiveness of the
court nor with the methods used to determine possible advantages of a
merger.
Those are my comments. I am prepared to move ahead on
the bill, but there is still a lot of work that needs to be done.
(1605)
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian
Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the erudite analysis of
Bill C-30 that my hon. colleague from Provencher just gave us.
Given his experience as attorney general and, in his
previous life, as a practitioner and a member of the bar, would he agree with
the comments of Alex Macdonald, the former attorney general of British
Columbia, regarding the prodigal law in the justice system in Canada? He said
that the law states that the amount of time it takes to bring a case to its
culmination depends directly on the amount of money and the amount of time
available to service the case.
The auditor general showed us that roughly less than
50% of the courts actually were occupied by judges and lawyers hearing cases.
There is a tremendous inefficiency here. It must have taken a lot of ingenuity
on the part of the judges and lawyers to bring it up to 50% because clearly
their interest would be to make sure they have access to the space and that it
would be free and independent as it possibly could be.
The auditor general has provided us with a tremendous
insight here. He was able to unearth something that apparently was clear to
everyone, yet at the same time these people had a vested interest to make sure
they did not find that.
Could the member comment on the prodigal law and on the
vested interest that individuals have in making sure that the space is
available in the public sector that they want but may not need?
Mr. Vic Toews:
Madam Speaker, with respect to the concept of the
prodigal laws where cases and time expand dependent upon the amount of money
available to serve the cases, that is clearly true. Litigation is a very
expensive business. One has to have the money in order to fuel that fire.
Depending upon the goodwill or indeed the lack of goodwill of some litigants,
we can see time being eaten away by the courts.
In all fairness, many trial judges that I appeared in
front of recognized the problem. They tried to do things about it. They did not
like abuse of the court system. They did not like counsel wasting time.
However, there was always a fear by the trial judges that, if they cut short
frivolous arguments they would be overturned on appeal because they did not
give the lawyer or individual a fair hearing.
I have found that judges have been more than tolerant
of the comments, the length of comments and the time they take, not because
they do not recognize the problem at the trial level but because of their fear
of being overturned by a court of appeal which may not have that hands-on day
to day experience and not see the problem creeping up. It is a serious
problem.
When I was serving as a provincial justice minister, we
tried to do a number of things to increase the efficiency and the use of the
courts. It was extremely difficult to get the facts and the figures. The clerks
who answered to a deputy minister and who answered to me kept all the records
of the use of the courts but were prohibited by the judges from providing that
information to me. Eventually after a long protracted battle I got some of
it.
It essentially demonstrated that even in our provincial
judges' courts, which are considered the workhorses of the court system, the
day to day courts where 90% of the cases are heard, that three to three and a
half hours a day was the average. That indicated to me that there was something
wrong but I could not quite put my finger on it.
I have a tremendous concern that as we move toward the
independence of the administrators of the court the very small ability that
elected officials now have to demand some type of accountability will disappear
completely. That is my concern.
I share some of his concerns but I would not
necessarily fault trial court judges in that respect. Generally speaking they
do a very good job of trying to move matters ahead.
(1610)
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian
Alliance):
Madam Speaker, we have an interesting bill before us.
It is probably one of the simplest and most incontrovertible bills we have seen
for a long time. It rationalizes what would appear to be a logical thing to do:
to organize these courts under one umbrella and one chief administrator. It
makes eminent good sense.
As a business person and an administrator in a previous
life I think it makes jolly good sense. It is about time someone did something
like this. The auditor general said it would be a good thing to do and it is.
On the face of it that part makes excellent sense.
For the benefit of our listeners and viewers this
afternoon I will indicate exactly which four courts would be rationalized under
one administrative body. They are the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal
Court of Appeal, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of
Canada.
As we all know there is entrepreneurial bureaucracy in
the world. There are entrepreneurial bureaucrats whose function seems to be to
increase the number of people under their administration. The salary structure
is put together in such a way that the more people one administers the greater
one's pay, and of course the greater the responsibility and the more the work
expands.
We have created a super administrative body whose chief
administrator has one of the most auspicious jobs in the world. The
administrator's job is to tell judges they cannot use a particular room on a
certain day. That is a tremendous power. The chief administrator can tell
judges, who for all intents and purposes are superior, where they can go to
practise their art.
I am overstating the case. I am not really serious but
I am sure that kind of thing will happen. The independence that my colleague
mentioned is a real issue. The way the government states the case in terms of
the purposes of the bill is significant. I will read from the bill. It
states:
The purposes of this Act are to
|
|
(a)
facilitate coordination and cooperation among the Federal Court of Appeal, the
Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada for
the purpose of ensuring the effective and efficient provision of administrative
services to those courts; |
Here is the significant part. Its purpose is also
to:
|
(b)
enhance judicial independence by placing administrative services at arm's
length from the Government of Canada and by affirming the roles of chief
justices and judges in the management of the courts; and |
|
(c)
enhance accountability for the use of public money in support of court
administration while safeguarding the independence of the
judiciary. |
Three issues are at stake here: independence,
accountability, and not only independence for the justices but independence
from the Government of Canada. Is it not interesting that the judiciary should
be placed in a position where there is independence from the Government of
Canada? I am not entirely sure how a judge would interpret this. In the final
analysis the courts are set up by legislation which is a function of the
Government of Canada. We do it here.
In one sense we want judges to be independent when they
interpret laws. In their interpretations judges should take into account the
intent of the Parliament of Canada when it passed the laws. That is what they
should do. I want judges to be independent and not influenced by the political
vagaries of the day a law was passed. However I want them to know what the
intent of the law was.
When the Canadian constitution and the bill of rights
were passed certain clear indications were made by the Parliament of Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada later read into those provisions certain clauses,
interpretations and definitions that were never intended by the House of
Commons.
(1615)
That means there is independence not only in terms of
interpreting the law but in the sense of judges telling parliament what they
think it should have done. A power exists in Canada today that ought not to be
there as far as judges are concerned.
One might ask whether I am taking this too far. I do
not think so. There is evidence that this has happened. We need to be careful
in considering this type of legislation which seems so innocuous on the
surface. When it is working its way through the system we should examine what
its end result could be.
It is interesting that the auditor general not only
recommended a body that would tie together the administrative services of the
courts under one umbrella, he also suggested some courts ought to be
amalgamated. My hon. colleague said there was opposition to
amalgamation.
I talked earlier about bureaucratic entrepreneurship.
One of the laws of bureaucratic entrepreneurship is that no one shall ever take
away one's authority or reduce the number of people over whom one has
supervisory responsibility. That is anathema to being a bureaucrat.
Am I suggesting bureaucrats are bad people? Heavens no,
I am not. They are wonderful people. They help us a lot. It would be terrible
if bureaucrats were not extremely jealous about their positions. They had
better be, or what are they doing there?
I want bureaucrats to be truthful and honest. In
discussing his experience in the provincial legislature the hon. member
indicated that it was difficult to find out from the people he was responsible
for what was happening with the utilization of space they were paying for.
I do not blame these people for making it difficult,
but there is something wrong with the system when it is that difficult to get
at the truth. We need to recognize that as a society. We need to recognize it
in the House of Commons.
I will move away from Bill C-30 for a couple of minutes
to talk about its timing. Canadians are neighbours of the United States of
America. Twenty-two days ago we witnessed a horrible event. Terrorists killed
innocent people. Yet here we are today being asked by the government and the
House to consider legislation to rationalize the administrative services of our
courts rather than legislation to deal with terrorism. I question the timing.
How could this be more important than the September 11 tragedy?
What we need in our society today is a commitment to
honesty, truth and the recognition that terrorism does not arise out of
poverty. Terrorism does not arise out of the fact that someone did not get his
way. Terrorism arises from a heart that wants to kill or destroy, for whatever
reason. There is evil in the world. That is what gives rise to terrorism. The
best laws in the world will not prevent evil. All they can hope to do is push
it back a bit so it does not become the force it could become.
The hon. member from the coalition indicated the
establishment in Halifax of the Hell's Angels. The group had a storefront
advertising the fact that they were there. We would not call them terrorists at
this point; however, what goes on in the hearts of people who are organized for
the specific purpose of defying the law?
(1620)
What goes on in the mind of a judge who issues a
perfunctory punishment to people who deliberately and in an organized manner
grow marijuana? The judge slaps them on the wrist with a $5,000 fine. They
laugh at the judge and say it is an expensive business licence, and they carry
on doing business.
It used to be that law enforcement officers and the
judges who found these people guilty could confiscate the material they used to
grow the marijuana, or whatever the criminal offence was. They cannot do so any
more.
What has happened to us? What has happened to our
school systems? The system does not seem to care any more whether students
cheat on an examination. Yes, we make noise and tell students they shall not
cheat, but the kids go home and say that everyone is doing it. What is wrong
when students feel they cannot perform too well because they will be frowned
upon up on? They do not make their best effort.
We need to move ahead with truth, honesty and integrity
so we can do the things that will build our society and make us strong. That is
the strongest instrument against terrorism we could possibly devise.
Does that mean we should not have good legislation
against terrorism? Of course we should. However we should also challenge
parents, school teachers, MPs and every leader of the community to instill into
the hearts and minds of people that it is important to pass good laws, obey
those laws and make sure our kids do the same.
We need to be sure Bill C-30 achieves its purpose of
giving independence to the administrative body. That is what we need to go for.
However it will depend on judges who have the right heart. It will depend on
administrators who have the right heart. The intent of Bill C-30 will need to
be observed by the judges who are asked to interpret and apply it.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I got the feeling from the member's
speech that he had two major concerns. First, while consolidation of the
various court administrations might make things more efficient and less costly,
the bureaucratic aspect to all this and the fact that the jobs will probably be
preserved means we might only be transferring costs to another area of
government without cutting them at all. Is that one of the member's
concerns?
Second, while perhaps making the administration of the
courts more efficient the act would do nothing to improve the judgments coming
out of them. The member used as an example the current terrorist threat and a
recent court ruling that has made it virtually impossible to deport terrorists.
It brought to mind a case from North Vancouver. I
received a fax a moment ago from one of my constituents. Mr. Alastair Ritchie
called to remind me about the case of a man who was forging passports in North
Vancouver. We wanted to see the man deported but he still lives there. I just
remembered the case. The man was convicted in North Vancouver three years ago
of forging passports and the judge gave him a six month suspended
sentence.
We must ask ourselves what on earth goes through the
mind of a judge who would do that. I criticized the judge openly. The hon.
member talked about accountability. I criticized the judge openly. The judge
called me and said we should have lunch because he wanted to talk with me about
what happens in courts and so on.
We went to lunch together and he tried to justify
giving a six month suspended sentence to someone who forges passports. I said
to him in the end that he had become jaded and insensitive and was no longer in
touch with the values of the community.
Does the hon. member get the sense, as I do, that the
bill would not change court judgments? Does he feel the government should be
tabling meaningful legislation that gets on top of the problems instead of
twiddling around the edges as it usually does with administrative
matters?
(1625)
Mr. Werner Schmidt:
Madam Speaker, my colleague from North Vancouver
understood my speech very well. He understood exactly what I was trying to
say.
It is interesting that the claim is made that the
savings from bringing them under one umbrella would be somewhere in the
neighbourhood of $600,000 to $1 million. That may or may not be true. There is
absolutely nothing to show that would happen.
Although Alex Macdonald uses the prodigal law in the
context of the legal system, that prodigal law also applies in administrative
matters where the activity in a particular office expands to cover the time
available to the individuals sitting there. Sometimes when asked how much time
people spend in the office, they will say six hours. The question is about what
they achieved. The important aspect is not how long they were there but rather
what they achieved. It is one of the issues that is very critical.
The other point I want to emphasize is that we need to
recognize that the intent of legislation is every bit as important, maybe more
important, than what the legislation actually says word for word. Too often
legal expertise is very good at pulling out the tiny little issue, and one word
will slit a particular meaning of a section in an act. Sometimes people will be
declared innocent or acquitted on one tiny technicality. Sometimes a
technicality is critical because it does reveal the intent but sometimes it
does not. It is critical that we recognize that sort of thing and deal directly
with the level and degree of punishment involved.
These are questions of intent. They are also questions
of values that operate in our society. It is very important.
I have to use this opportunity to refer to something
else. In terms of terrorism, a committee of 10 senior cabinet ministers has
been created. They are to look after the domestic security of Canadians. That
sounds very good. The head of the committee is the Minister of Foreign
Affairs.
This is really interesting because in the government
cabinet there is a solicitor general. He has CSIS and the RCMP under his
jurisdiction. CSIS is supposed to provide intelligence about what is happening,
particularly in regard to terrorism and other threats. The RCMP does that as
well.
Mr. Stan Keyes:
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if
you could ask the hon. member to address the issue that is before the House,
specifically Bill C-30 on streamlining and the effectiveness of combining the
administration of the courts.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
With respect to the Chair occupant guiding the member's
topic, I am sure the member is coming to the end of his remarks and his
time.
(1630)
Mr. Werner Schmidt:
Madam Speaker, if the hon. member had listened just a
little longer, he would have gotten the connection right away.
Mr. Stan Keyes:
Oh, I have been listening to your whole speech. I
haven't missed a word.
Mr. Werner Schmidt:
It is wonderful, Madam Speaker, that he took the time
to listen. I am so glad he did that. That is excellent.
Mr. Stan Keyes:
But I have not heard anything.
Mr. Werner Schmidt:
That is because you were not listening.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Members will address questions and comments through the
Chair.
Mr. Werner Schmidt:
Madam Speaker, the whole business of setting things up
in such a way is to make sure that the judges who are appointed for each of the
specific courts make the decisions that they ought to be making. When this does
not happen, when the solicitor general loses the particular responsibility
through the formation of a committee, that is not doing what was originally
intended for the solicitor general. It is an illustration of what happens
here.
I will support this piece of legislation because its
intent is okay. I also want to caution that unless it is administered in such a
way that the intent is realized, it will not meet the objective that was set
for it in the first place.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Accordingly,
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights.
(Motion agreed to, bill
read the second time and referred to a committee)
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform
the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
are as follows: the hon. member for South Surrey--White Rock--Langley, Airline
Industry; the hon. member for South Shore, Harbours; the hon. member for
Acadie--Bathurst, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Shipbuilding.
* * *
[Translation]
Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada
Act
Hon. Stéphane Dion
(for the Minister of Transport) moved that Bill
C-34, an act to establish the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of
Canada and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. André Harvey (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to have the
opportunity to speak about the establishment of the Transportation Appeal
Tribunal of Canada. We are going through a period characterized by great
insecurity in the field of transportation and this affects not only the
Department of Transport but almost all departments. Clearly there is no simple
solution to a complex problem.
In this spirit, I wish to pay tribute to the excellent
work done by our colleague, the Canadian Minister of Transport, who has played
a very important role in co-ordinating the activities of various departments.
From the very first day of the crisis, when terrorism invaded all the countries
of the world, he showed great wisdom in implementing concrete measures, which
will not be in place forever but which were very important in the short
term.
I have frequently heard certain members of the
opposition criticizing some of these measures. They would have liked to see a
simple response to something as complex as terrorism. Nonetheless, the minister
has moved forward, implementing measures which will help, in the very near
future, we hope, to put the airline industry back on its fee, and which will
have an impact on all economic activities and all aspects of our economic and
social life.
It should be pointed out that in spite of the
grievances of some opposition members, there are many who would find it a
lonely place if they were members of other western parliaments. I think that
Canada and the Canadian parliament have been models of consultation and
information since the beginning of the crisis.
We have had tens of hours of debate, the Prime Minister
has been present at almost every oral question period and the Minister of
Transport has been present at all of them. He was also here throughout the
emergency debate that we had on Monday evening to discuss the air
transportation issue. I should also mention the availability of all the
committee members. Not many parliaments in the western world have been so open
to a largely public discussion on the enormous challenge that faces us in the
area of security.
I am pleased to support Bill C-34, an act to establish
the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada and to make consequential
amendments to other acts. This bill is another illustration of the federal
government's commitment to reform the legislation on national transportation
and to improve safety and security in the national transportation system.
In order to have the safest possible transportation
system, it is very important that Transport Canada officials have a broad set
of effective powers to ensure compliance and enforce regulations.
When serious offences are committed, we rely on
criminal proceedings and penalties. We will continue to deal with these types
of offences through the use of enforcement powers and criminal penalties.
However, because of certain acts governing transportation in Canada, the
department has had to rely on criminal proceedings to deal with minor
offences.
Criminal proceedings can be very costly and in some
cases they can drag on for years. Moreover, the vast majority of offences under
the various federal transportation laws are not of a criminal nature. There is
a huge discrepancy between the offence and the criminal penalty that may be
imposed. For these two reasons, there has been in recent years a marked
tendency to decriminalize federal transportation laws and implement an
administrative process instead of resorting to criminal proceedings, except for
serious offences.
Administrative measures can take various forms:
licences, certificates and permits may be suspended or revoked; compliance
transactions may be concluded; pecuniary penalties may be imposed; and orders
can be issued.
(1635)
Current federal legislation on transport, as well as
that proposed, contains examples of these administrative powers.
There is another point that is as important as the
matter of administrative powers and that is the need for individuals and
businesses that have been taken to court to have recourse to an independent
entity able to review the way Transport Canada is using its powers.
As far as aviation is concerned, individuals and
companies against which administrative measures have been applied under the
Aeronautics Act have recourse to the civil aviation tribunal. There is no
similar tribunal for the maritime or rail sector. In those sector, the
examination processes, if there are any, take place typically within the
department.
The purpose of Bill C-34 and of the creation of the
transportation appeal tribunal of Canada is to enable the maritime and rail
sectors to have the same effective right to recourse as the civil aviation
sector does with the civil aviation tribunal with respect to administrative
decisions by Transport Canada.
The civil aviation tribunal was created in 1986 to
examine cases of infractions of the licensing or other regulations by companies
or individuals under the Aeronautics Act. The tribunal is completely
independent of Transport Canada.
For more than 15 years, the civil aviation tribunal has
been providing admirable service to the aviation industry and the department.
In the course of a typical year the CAT holds about 100 hearings as well as
settling some 100 other cases without involving the entire hearing
process.
The new transportation appeal tribunal of Canada would
replace the civil aviation Ttibunal as well as encompassing the marine and rail
modes. The three major circuits would therefore be integrated. Cases would be
heard relating not only to the Aeronautics Act but also to the Canada Shipping
Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Marine Transportation Safety Act and
the Railway Safety Act. Thanks to the creation of a multimodal tribunal, the
aviation, maritime and rail sectors would all have similar rights of recourse
in connection with administrative decisions by Transport Canada.
The new tribunal would adopt many of the specific
characteristics that have made the civil aviation tribunal so effective.
Members of the transportation appeal tribunal should possess expertise in the
specific transport field. For example, cases relating to the maritime shipping
sector would be heard by tribunal members with knowledge of that sector, and
the same for the rail sector.
Under this approach all the cases would be heard by
people who have the necessary technical and operational background to
understand the evidence, determine if all the regulations and security
standards were complied wit, and identify the impact on security of failing to
comply with regulations or of engaging in dangerous practices.
The process the tribunal would adopt would be informal,
inexpensive and quick, because the tribunal would be an administrative body as
opposed to a court of justice. It would not be subject to some of the costs,
restrictions and other matters associated with criminal procedures.
Operators or individuals could represent themselves
instead of hiring a lawyer, but the parties would be free to do so if they wish
to.
The new tribunal would examine all the cases in two
stages. First, a review hearing would be held by a single member of the
tribunal. After having heard the two parties and taking into consideration all
the evidence adduced, the member would make a determination. The individual
against whom the measures would be taken could appeal to an appeal panel, which
would usually consist of three of the members of the tribunal.
In some cases the department could also appeal the
determination made by the member and the decision of the tribunal would be
final. Moreover, the appeal could not be taken to the courts if it was based on
the same facts as those examined by the tribunal.
(1640)
The powers of the transportation appeal tribunal of
Canada would depend on the nature of the cases it hears. Should the penalty be
essentially punitive, the tribunal's decision would take precedence over that
of the department. A good example would be the levying of a monetary penalty by
the department based on the breach of a regulation.
After considering the evidence provided by the parties,
the tribunal would be authorized to make a final, mandatory decision as to
whether or not there actually was an offence committed and, if so, what the
appropriate penalty should be.
Conversely, when measures are more concerned with
qualifications for holding a licence, a certificate or other documents, and
other matters of safety and security, the tribunal could, as a general rule,
merely confirm the department's decision or refer it back to the department for
review.
The purpose of the bill is not to water down the
Department of Transport's basic responsibilities for safety and security under
various statutes. As I have already said, the transportation appeal tribunal of
Canada would operate in essentially the same manner as the civil aviation
tribunal.
I am certain that the transportation appeal tribunal of
Canada, as proposed in Bill C-34 would provide the department and the air, rail
and marine sectors with a process for reviewing enforcement measures that is
fair, rapid and cost effective. The tribunal would promote greater compliance
with federal statutes governing transportation and would enhance safety and
security in the national transportation system.
(1645)
[English]
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, Bill C-34, the transportation appeal
tribunal of Canada act, would create a transportation appeal tribunal that
would replace and expand upon the civil aviation tribunal by extending its
jurisdiction to cover rail and marine. It makes consequential amendments to
various other transportation acts in order to make this possible.
It is certainly a good idea, but given the
circumstances in which Canada finds itself one has to ask the question: Why
now? Why are we dealing with this now? Given all the other issues that are at
stake in the aviation and the transport industries in general, why are we
dealing with this issue now?
The legislation was tabled on September 26, 15 days
after the terrorist attack. On the transportation side, the government could
have chosen to table any legislation it wanted to. It could have tabled
literally anything. The members of all the opposition parties have said that
they would be open to any legislation that advances the ball in terms of
airport security, airline security and now, given the reality of Air Canada and
Canada 3000, the concerns we have with the layoffs and so on. We would be
willing to consider any legislation that deals with the health and financial
stability of the airline industry as a whole.
Instead, what does the government table? It tables the
transportation appeal tribunal of Canada act. Do not get me wrong, it is decent
legislation. In fact, the official opposition will support the legislation.
However we have to ask where are the priorities of the government.
The immediate impact on the airline sector of the
September 11 attack has been a serious lack of consumer confidence. Bookings
are way down. Air Canada reports that bookings are down anywhere between 30%
and 35%. There is a serious loss in consumer confidence.
People still have very serious safety concerns. I
raised the issue in the House that Transport Canada, through its own internal
studies and tests, tried to smuggle mock knives, guns and bombs past airport
security. Transport Canada knows statistically that over the past year one in
five attempts to smuggle replica guns, knives and bombs past airport security
has been a success, or a failure, I guess, as the average Canadian would look
at it.
Canadians have serious concerns about that. We have
serious concerns about a gentleman flying from Yellowknife to Vancouver who
managed to smuggle two submachine guns and several boxes of ammunition onto an
airplane and onto the ground. The gentleman was drunk. He threw two submachine
guns and a few boxes of ammunition into a duffle bag. He was not attempting to
smuggle. He was not a MacGyver in a unique attempt to get things past security.
He just threw this stuff in a duffle bag and walked onto the plane drunk.
Airport security is failing in the country and it is having a dramatic impact
on consumer confidence in flying, but the government is not doing anything
about it.
The official opposition has repeatedly called in the
House for the institution of air marshals. The institution of air marshals
would be a dramatic and positive step in terms of airport security. The United
States has been doing it on international flights for over 30 years. Air
marshals are plainclothes police who are specifically trained to deal with
security concerns on planes while they are in flight. As a deterrent, they are
put cyclically on different flights so terrorists do not know which flights
they are on and which ones they are not on.
If the government were to institute that post-September
11 it would do two things. First, it would add another level of security in the
air. That is important. It is important given the realities we are facing; as
the Prime Minister, the president of the United States, NATO, article 5, and
the House have said, we are facing a war against terrorism, against people who
do horrendous things like hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Once they
are on those planes they use them as missiles and guide them in a kamikaze
mission to murder innocent people. There is no other way to stop them but in
the air with armed air marshals. This would provide another important level of
air security.
What this would also do, and this goes under the issue
of consumer confidence, is boost consumer confidence in a dramatic way. The
government has failed to do that.
There have been calls for financial support for the
airline sector. Again the government has not really said or done anything. The
transport minister yesterday announced $160 million for Canada's air carriers
for the out of pocket costs they incurred on September 11, and again the
official opposition supports that, but he announced it across the hall. He
announced it in a press conference.
(1650)
He did not show due respect to this place by announcing
it here where we could have had an open debate to find out exactly how the $160
million was arrived at and how it was meted out to the different air carriers.
Every party in the House has said that it will support the idea of paying for
the out of pocket costs incurred by the air industry. If the minister had
announced that in the House rather than at a press conference he would have had
political parties supporting it; that would have been a vote of confidence for
the airline industry that the government did not seize upon. The government is
failing in that sense.
The United States congress has approved over $15
billion for the air industry. I am not calling for us to give $15 billion to
the air industry or 10% thereof, but the U.S. has put concrete legislative
proposals on the table, good or bad, in the long term interest or not, and we
are dealing with the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada act.
Air Canada has asked for $3 billion to $4 billion in
bailouts. The government has not ruled it out. The official opposition sure
has. We could currently buy every single share of Air Canada stock in the stock
market, I am told, for in the neighbourhood of $695 million to $711
million.
Air Canada has publicly said that it wants $3 billion
to $4 billion but its net worth, if one were to purchase every single share of
its stock, is in the neighbourhood of $700 million. Somehow that does not add
up yet the government has not ruled that out as an option. In fact it has not
put any numbers at all on the table for us to discuss and to deal with. It has
not brought a single thing before the transport committee for us to deal with
and sink our teeth into so that we can contribute to a positive alternative
solution to the situation we are facing.
The transport minister needs to reassure the public
that the government is doing something. Bill C-34 does not reassure the public
that the government is doing something because of the September 11 attack. The
fact that we are debating Bill C-34 right now is an indication that the
government is totally out of step within the realities of the world
post-September.
Since I have been the transport critic for the official
opposition or since I have been a member of parliament, I have not had a single
call to my office asking me when Bill C-34 would be tabled nor have I had
people telling me that they are really curious about the transportation appeal
tribunal act or that as I am their member of parliament they really want me to
expand the civil aviation tribunal so could I please deal with that. That is a
really important issue right now.
The terrorist attacks and the status of Air Canada with
9,000 to 12,000 people laid off can be put aside. We talk about a tribunal act.
Nobody is calling for that. We have to wonder: To whom is the government
listening? What leadership role is it fulfilling by doing this?
Again, the government needs to address safety concerns
for a whole host of reasons, like boosting consumer confidence and providing
more security for flying Canadians. It also needs to ensure long term
competition in the air industry.
I noted that the transport minister in an interview
yesterday said that we may need to have a thorough restructuring. He said this
at the same press conference where he announced the $160 million for the
airline industry. He said that we may have to restructure the entire airline
industry again, not that the restructuring that was done 24 months ago was bad,
but it may need to be restructured again. However, we should not ask him if the
last one was a success or not, but we may have to restructure again.
Those are the sorts of things that we need to be
dealing with, the restructuring of the airlines, airport security and airline
security. The situation with Canada 3000 may be more volatile in the short term
than that of Air Canada. The transport minister is just not showing
leadership.
We should compare what Canada's transport minister, the
finance minister and the Prime Minister are doing with what the United States
is doing. In Chicago on Thursday of last week President Bush did three things.
First, he called up the national guard and placed guardsmen at inspection
stations in airports. They are still there. He said:
|
--we
will work with the governors to provide security measures--visible security
measures--so the traveling public will know that we are serious about airline
safety in America. |
The second thing he did was dramatically increase the
number of air marshals on planes. He said:
When Americans fly, there need to be
more highly-skilled and fully-equipped officers of law flying alongside
them. |
The third thing he did was give $500 million in new
funding for aircraft security, the physical infrastructure of planes. He gave
grants to airlines for enhanced cockpit protection. He will work with the
pilots and airlines to fortify doors and provide stronger locks so pilots will
always be in command of the airplane and no one can get into the
cockpit.
(1655)
Again this goes back to what I said before, about the
transport minister announcing $160 million, but across the street. He announced
that the government would be closing cockpit doors and that it would be
mandated now on every flight. Fine. That is good and we support that. It is a
solid step in the right direction. Good show. However, again he announced it
outside the House.
I will applaud the minister when he announces an
initiative, a bold initiative, any initiative, a meagre initiative, but that
will be the day when he actually does it in the House. When he does he will
earn our applause. However he has not done it yet and he is abdicating his
responsibility to make parliament the decision maker in terms of the long term
interest of our airline industry, in terms of security and in terms of
competition. Parliament should decide it, not just the transport minister. The
transport minister can propose it. That is the duty and obligation of the
transport minister and of the executive of the government, but parliament as a
whole should be deciding these issues.
Relative to what the United States has done, the
government's response has been utterly and completely lacklustre. Air Canada,
as I have said, has announced that it will lay off 5,000 people in addition to
the 4,000 already announced. The numbers may be as high at 12,000 when all is
said and done.
I have called on the transport minister, and I will do
it again, to do four concrete things. I call on him to reconvene the transport
committee, which happened on Monday, but to give us a set agenda to address the
security and financial issues the air industry is facing.
I was happy to learn this afternoon that the transport
minister announced he will be appearing before the transport committee
tomorrow. I hope he comes with better answers and solutions than he came to the
House with when we had our take note debate on the airline industry as a whole.
He came to the House and said literally nothing. He said that everything was
fine. He did not mention any specific numbers with regard to Air Canada. He did
not share with the House the specific financial crunch that Air Canada is
facing. He did not tell the House exactly what Air Canada has asked him for in
private, which he could share with the House so that opposition members could
consider those numbers and consider how we might approach these things. He did
not say anything. I hope that when he comes before the committee tomorrow he
actually has something concrete to contribute.
The second thing the transport minister should do is
ask Robert Milton of Air Canada and the heads of all of Canada's national and
regional air carriers to appear before the transport committee immediately, for
the committee to hear arguments for and against any potential financial
support.
The third thing he needs to do is institute air
marshals today, as I said, to boost consumer confidence in the airline industry
and to offer another layer of air travel security. We have to think of this not
only in the context of boosting consumer confidence and within the context of
giving another layer of security in the air but also to the extent that
specifically, if there is ever a financial bailout beyond the $160 million, the
lion's share of that money will go to Air Canada, principally because it has a
dominant share of the domestic air travel in this country with the customers it
flies. It will take the lion's share of that money.
Given that reality and the fact that Air Canada is the
only real Canadian based competitor that competes internationally, Air Canada
will be competing against American carriers that now have air marshals. In the
United States as a whole there are over 12,000 people who are now being trained
and assigned as air marshals. Air Canada will be competing on the international
stage with Lufthansa, United, American Airlines, Continental and a host of
other air carriers that will all have air marshals on planes.
In the future when people fly the questions they will
ask will not simply be about what the in cabin amenities will be, how long the
flight will be, how much leg room they will have, what movies will be shown and
whether a hot or cold meal will be served. They will also be asking serious
questions about the security of the airplanes. They will ask about cockpit
doors. They will ask about air marshals.
In regard to the United States having air marshals, the
transport minister said in the House that he is ruling out the idea of air
marshals altogether as an extreme and radical proposition. He is just ruling it
out right away. What he has done is cement himself into a position that will
force Air Canada into a situation where it has a competitive disadvantage with
other international carriers in trying to bring more people on board. That is a
big mistake, not only in the security sense, not only in the sense of not
boosting consumer confidence but in the sense that he is putting Canadian
carriers at a competitive disadvantage by ruling out the idea of air marshals.
That is a big mistake.
The fourth thing I would ask the transport minister to
do is ask all of Canada's air carriers to submit a full list of their direct
out of pocket expenses incurred during the days that Canada's airports were
shut down so that consideration can be given to compensation for those costs.
We are told that the transport minister has those numbers and therefore acted
to give $160 million. We support the giving of the out of pocket costs, but it
is very difficult to say whether or not we support the precise figure of $160
million when the transport minister has not tabled the exact figures before the
House.
(1700)
The out of pocket costs incurred by the airline
industry on September 11 are legitimate costs. The skies were closed, not
because of any market forces but because of a government mandate. Therefore it
is entirely reasonable for the government to compensate the airlines for the
closing of the skies.
I assume those airlines gave the transport minister an
itemized list of what all their expenses were but he has not shared them with
the House. That is irresponsible. Given the fact that we have not had a budget
in 18 months and we may not have a budget for another 18 months as we have not
had a firm commitment on that front, the House needs to send a signal by voting
on specific measures. I would be proud to vote in favour of giving $160 million
to the airline industry, given that the appropriate accounting has been done
for those expenses. That would be a signal from the House that we will support
the airline industry for the tough times it experienced on September
11.
Specifically on Bill C-34, the transportation appeal
tribunal act, on the face of it the idea of a transportation tribunal is a good
one. It is clear that some bright person looked at the civil aviation tribunal
which so efficiently deals with the suspension of a pilot's licence and with
airworthiness certificates, and said "I bet this would work in shipping and I
bet this would work in rail as well". It has been expanded and we support
that.
It is a good idea. Anything that lets minor disputes be
settled outside the court system, specifically when the decisions are made by
people with some expertise in the area in question, is a positive step. To have
some injection of some common sense into disputes makes a lot of sense and we
support it.
However, the transport committee really needs to be
brought into a broader discussion, as I have said before, not only on this
legislation but on other pieces of legislation. Canadians think that the
transport committee should be plugged in so that we can make travel safer on
airplanes, highways, rail and in seaway navigation. They want us to encourage
competition, service to communities and affordable prices. Right now Canadians
want airline competition among healthy airlines. They want safer skies, better
airport security, stronger cockpit doors and air marshals. They want the same
standards the United States has.
Let us have a level playing field. We always talk about
a level playing field in terms of trade and in a lot of areas. Let us talk
about a level playing field in terms of aviation as well.
The transport committee needs to deal with a lot of
things and it is not. We have some extraordinarily experienced parliamentarians
on the committee. I think of the member for South Surrey--White Rock--Langley
who used to be the transport critic for the official opposition. I think of the
NDP member for Churchill, an outstanding member of parliament who has done a
lot of hard work on committee. I think of the member for Toronto--Danforth and
the member for Winnipeg South. There are a lot of very good, highly competent,
very experienced people in the transport committee who are really ready and
anxious to do a lot of good work, to help contribute.
The transport minister has not plugged in the
committee. He has not given us any guidance or pushed us forward. He has not
tabled any meaningful legislation. What on earth are we doing talking about
Bill C-34, a tribunal act, when at this very moment we could be talking about
airport security and the question of whether or not we should re-nationalize
airport security?
We could be talking about the guiding principles of a
possible bailout for the airline industry and whether or not it is appropriate.
We could be talking about air marshals. We could be talking about mandating
that older planes still in service have reinforced cockpit doors with the
newest technology such as the Kevlar coming out of Boeing.
That is the sort of legislation we could be dealing
with, but we are not being shown that leadership. We are being shown
legislation, well meaning, decent legislation that would cut down on
bureaucracy and would increase efficiency and inject some common sense into
things, but on the radar screen of Canadians in terms of the legislation they
want to see and the priorities they have for the transport committee, the
transport minister and the transport industry of the country, the legislation
is way wide of the mark. Canadians deserve better. They deserve better
leadership.
I have one piece of advice for the transport minister.
I have told him this in private and I have told him that I will say it
publicly. I will do so now. The best thing parliament can do on a cross-party
basis for the airline industry as a whole in this time of crisis is to stand
shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. and announce the kinds of things that
President Bush did in Chicago on Thursday of last week.
President Bush went to Chicago and stood on a podium in
front of 1,200 airline employees, the people who check the bags, the in-cabin
flight crews, pilots, security guards, everyone. He stood in front of 1,200 of
them with the transportation secretary at one shoulder, with the governor of
Illinois at the other shoulder, with a couple of senators on his flank and
members of congress and the state assembly on the other flank. He stood on that
big stage with a big American flag and he said his government would put air
marshals on planes, mandate the reinforcement and renovation of cockpit doors,
beef up security on the ground with the latest technologies and retrain
everyone on the ground. "Fly the friendly skies" he said. He said there was no
reason why Americans should not fly in their country. He said America will not
be afraid, Americans will not allow the terrorists to alter their way of life,
they will soldier forward.
President Bush did it. He made a big public statement.
However the transport minister said in the debate on Monday night that he does
not want to make big public statements. I know that he is not a shy man. He is
a good guy, but he needs to make big public pronouncements. That is precisely
what is called for. He says he does not want to make big public pronouncements
because he does not want to send some kind of signal. Most people I talk to do
not understand the signal he is trying to avoid.
The transport minister says he wants to make little
announcements such as the announcement that he made across the street in a
press conference. He wants to make announcements in scrums. He wants to make
announcements as he is running down the hall and avoiding reporters. He does
not want to stand up and make big public announcements, but that is exactly
what is called for, a big public announcement, a big vote of confidence and a
big boost to the airline industry, to say to Canadians that we are taking
action, that we will not let the terrorists alter our way of life. That
announcement would say to people that they are safe in the skies, the
government is behind them, the airlines are safe and the Government of Canada
will not fail them.
If the minister did that and put in the measures we are
talking about, the kinds of measures I have outlined in my talk, if he put
those things on the table, the official opposition would be proud to stand
behind him if he initiated those things, because that is progress and growth
and a step in the right direction. I am sure the other opposition members would
be as well. We reconvened the transport committee on Monday and had a meeting
yesterday. Right off the top, across all party lines, we all said that the big
thing we want to talk about when the transport minister comes to committee
tomorrow is the issue of airline security. We are all concerned about this,
just as all Canadians are concerned about it.
(1705)
Rather than substantive legislation and a substantive
signal from the transport minister that he will get behind this, encourage,
push and mandate new security measures, what do we get? We get Bill C-34, the
transportation appeal tribunal of Canada act.
This is an abdication of leadership. This is an
abdication of responsibility on the part of the transport minister. We need to
be showing leadership, putting real solutions forward and seizing the moment,
carpe diem, so we can encourage more people to fly and have a better
transportation industry. Bill C-34 does not accomplish that.
It is a real disappointment to have to say as a
Canadian, not even as a parliamentarian, that the government is sleepwalking
through what may be the largest crisis in our transportation industry with the
layoffs at Air Canada and sagging consumer confidence. The government is
sleepwalking through this entire episode and abdicating its responsibility to
show leadership and put substantive reforms on the table that will make our
industry better.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise
(Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate
on Bill C-34. I should note that the parliamentary secretary, who in his
introduction deemed it appropriate to congratulate the minister for his
availability and his quick reaction, seemed uncomfortable with the fact that
the first debate we have on transportation is on a bill to establish the
transportation appeal tribunal of Canada.
This bill has nothing to do with the great debates of
the last few weeks. Since the events of September 11, transportation has been
in the forefront of all our discussions in the House. Take note debates were
held, special committees were created and the first piece of legislation
dealing with transportation to be tabled in the House is aimed at establishing
an appeal tribunal.
As I said, the parliamentary secretary seemed
uncomfortable, and I will take this opportunity to respond to some of the
comments he made. He talked about the availability of the Minister of
Transport. The parliamentary secretary said that the Prime Minister was always
available, as well as the Minister of Transport. I should certainly hope so.
The least we can expect from the Minister of Transport is for him to be here in
the House to answer our questions and the least we can expect from the Prime
Minister is for him to do whatever he can to be with members of all parties as
often as possible to deal with such a serious situation as the terrorist
attacks of September 11 against the United States.
(1710)
The Minister of Transport was indeed available Monday
when we had the emergency debate. All day that day, the propaganda machine of
the Liberal government was hard at work on the radio and on television,
delivering the message that there would be a great debate that night on the
situation facing airlines in Canada following the sad events of September
11.
Everybody was looking forward to the minister's
statement. True, he was here, but he did not have to be here to make the
statement he made. We learned nothing new about what the government intends to
do, what the airlines were asking or what the government's financial capability
is to deal with the terrible events of September 11 and all the
consequences.
This is worth mentioning. Monday night, 13,602 jobs
were lost throughout Canada. I said in this House that we did not want to be
doomsayers, we just wanted to prevent further job losses, but Boeing has since,
just two days ago, announced more layoffs in Canada and the United States.
Messier-Dowty, the landing gear specialist supplying Boeing and other
airliners, has now put on hold the $70 million capital investment project
previously announced as part of its expansion plan.
The situation is undeniably getting worse. Granted, the
minister and the Prime Minister are availabl, but I wonder if they are also
available when it comes to addressing these problems. They are available to
discuss the issues, to use the propaganda machine, to be on television and on
the radio to reassure everyone that they are dealing with the issues, but they
should also be available to address the problems. I must say that is not what
we have seen so far.
I am trying to stay calm, because the situation is
getting worse and it will get even worse. It is unfortunate, but it is having a
domino effect. It is the same thing all over the world, not only in Canada. We
have to stop reacting.
The problem with the Minister of Transport and the
Liberal government is that they are always reacting. These are difficult times,
when action is really required, not reaction. That is what they did. The
government intervened quickly in reaction to terrible situations. However, when
the events are examined and security assessed, clearly the message was already
there in the Ressam case. The United States gave Canada strong warning, saying
“Look at the problem of terrorism in Canada. You should tighten your borders
and your security”. Nothing was done.
(1715)
I was surprised to hear employees of all the airlines,
who came to meet me as transport critic, mention the Ressam case; they told me
the airlines had not been asked to take any additional security measures. I
assume that no additional measures were required of the others involved in
security.
Therefore, despite what it knew, the government
continued to follow its economic policy and announced a budget. It was
mentioned earlier that there had not been a budget in 18 months. There was an
economic update. The government tightened the belt, it is true. Canadians were
asked to tighten their belts. Belts had to be tightened, but Canadians and
Quebecers still had to be given the security they expected.
Belts were tightened, but the government did not invest
in security. It is no longer involved in it. Security has been handed over to
private companies according to the lowest bidder. We can see what that means.
Security measures have been relaxed over the past 10 years.
In airports we get our boarding cards from electronic
machines. There are no more personnel. Security experts all tell us that the
first intervention in security matters is the instinct of the people who have
worked in the field for years. I mean the employees behind the counter in
airports who, instinctively and because of their training, are able to
recognize security problems first.
Employees, human beings have been replaced by machines.
Since September 11, there have been days when these machines were not used and
other days when they were put back in use.
There is always a reaction somewhere. This is what must
stop. The government, the Liberal Party, must stop thinking that it has all the
solutions. It is true that things are going well for the Liberals. They are
doing well in the polls, but at some point the political propaganda must stop
and the government must give the public what it expects. Right now, people want
to make sure that what occurred on September 11 never happens again.
(1720)
Of course, we cannot ever guarantee anything in our
societies, because they are liberal societies. The challenge for us consists in
protecting liberalism in our societies while imposing as few constraints as
possible, but we must have the required personnel at the borders, at airports
and everywhere. We must be able to provide adequate training, but all this
costs money.
The government must stop saying that it acts quickly
when a catastrophe occurs. Sure, the Minister of Transport acted very quickly
after the catastroph, but today we are asking him to be proactive and to invest
so that such catastrophes do not happen again.
The old adage says that an ounce of prevention is worth
a pound of cure. Since September 11, the Minister of Transport has been trying
to find a cure. The grim reality is that he never focused on prevention. The
Liberal government decided to win the election by saving as much money as
possible, but it did so in areas where it should not have, despite repeated
warnings.
After the Ressam case in 2000, Canada was told to
tighten security. It continued to save money, to make use of the private sector
and, above all, to give contracts to the lowest bidder. It is not anybody's
fault. No one can blame the employees who are there and who have not received
the proper training. The only reason is that the government is trying to save
money. It chose not to invest in our security. That is why we are faced with
this grim reality today.
I understand why the parliamentary secretary is
uncomfortable with Bill C-34, which establishes the transportation appeal
tribunal of Canada. The current situation does not call for the establishment
of appeal tribunals. It is a serious situation that must be dealt with in terms
of security and in terms of economic intervention.
We certainly hope to see the kind of quick reaction
that the member was talking about on the part of the government. So far the
government's reaction has been purely political. Every week it has made a small
announcement, but not in the House, not in front of members who were elected by
their fellow citizens to discuss these things. The government does not make
these announcements in front of parliamentarians.
Every week, in what will probably be an orchestrated
performance with a good communication plan, the government will try to lull the
good people of Quebec and Canada into thinking that it is looking after their
affairs.
If the government had actually done this we would not
be looking at the situations we are today. If the government were to take rapid
action, if it were to step in quickly, it could try to prevent the domino
effect in the airline and aviation industries and in international tourism.
That is what is required and it must be done soon.
Right now all it will do is stand by while everything
falls apart. It will let everything fall apart and will then take stock of the
damage and slowly but surely decide to put up a few million dollars every week
to show the public that it is looking after them and that it is capable of
sorting out their problems.
That is not what is needed. What is needed is a real
solution. What is needed is a real plan and it is time that the government told
us what that plan is. It is not the time for the government to come to this
House with a bill like Bill C-34, on which we are agreed. I say this up front.
There will not be any long debates about Bill C-34 and the creation of the
appeal tribunal, which should have been set up years ago.
For years now the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for
the integration of these four tribunals that were subject to the Aeronautics
Act, the Shipping Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Railways
Safety Act. This is what this bill is all about and we are happy about it.
However, it should have been done during the last parliament, and even a year
ago.
At this time last year the government once again called
an early election, which took all Canadians and opposition parties by surprise.
It rushed the election. The government's goal was, of course, to win the
election and as we can see it managed to do so.
Right now, however, Canadians and Quebecers are not
feeling totally safe with a Liberal government at the helm. More and more, they
approach the opposition parties to speak for them. The workers who lose their
jobs come to the opposition parties to have their voices heard in this
House.
This is exactly what we are trying to do and what we
have been trying to do since September 11. We are trying to speak on behalf of
those families who are going through some rough times because of their
employment situation, but again, nobody in the House is listening to us. With
legislation such as Bill C-34 the government is saying “See how we are trying
to deal with the transportation issues”.
(1725)
We are having serious discussions with various unions
about the proposed changes to the Employment Insurance Act and the way to deal
with all those job losses. Why is it always the little people and not the
managers who are affected by the layoffs? Why is it always the young workers,
those who have less seniority, who lose their jobs?
Why not arrange with the companies for major early
retirement programs, which are expensive but are a one time thing? The money is
paid out only once. It would be possible in the airline industry, with the help
of the unions, to use attrition in the industry as a whole to benefit the young
people who are the last to arriv, but the first hit by any draconian cuts, such
as those that result from major events like those of September 11. The
employees did not ask for this but they are being hit with it.
Once again, employees who have lost their jobs may find
it all very well for the minister to say on Monday “Look, security has finally
been improved since September 11, flight decks will be better protected”. There
are 13,600 of them who have lost their jobs. Some will lose their jobs with
Boeing in Canada. Some will lose a job or not get the one they were in line for
at Messier-Dowty. This will happen with other companies too. All these people
are entitled to say to the Minister of Transport “Why did you not think of this
before”?
Why did the Minister of Transport not think before of
tightening flight deck security? That is today's harsh reality. The government
reacted. It was quick, yes indeed. It found the solution, but why did it not
think of it before? There are other airlines around the world with flight deck
security measures.
This is a question we all must ask ourselves. We will
have the opportunity to do so in the transport committee. My colleague in the
Canadian Alliance said this earlier. This committee began deliberations this
week. Believe it or not, air transportation was not even on the agenda of the
government representatives sitting on the transport committee. Air
transportation problems were not on the agenda. It was the agenda from the
committee's previous deliberations, as if September 11 had never occurred. That
was the harsh reality. That is the harsh reality. Why is this so? Because
government members on this committee think their excellent minister is
available, acts quickly, and will react swiftly if there is a
problem.
I will repeat that an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure. We should try to involve all those concerned, in all parties. In
a crisis such as this one there is no room for politics or propaganda, but this
is all the Liberal Party has been doing since September 11. Once more the
public is being lulled by announcements.
Monday night's debate is a good example. It was
announced on all radio and television networks that there was going to be a
great debate that evening on the future of the airline industry in Canada. What
did the minister have to say? He was very glad he had successfully addressed
the issue of cockpit safety. He enumerated all the things he had done since day
one of the crisis, but strictly nothing has been done concerning a financial
assistance plan for the airline industry.
The day after the debate the Minister of Transport
announced the investment of $160 million. That was just to cover the losses of
September 11 to 16, when all of the airlines were grounded because of these
tragic events. They experienced losses because their employees were stranded
and so on.
The Minister helped out with those losses and must be
thanked for that, but since then, since the airspace shutdown from September 11
to 16, 13,602 jobs have been lost. There will be even more job losses at
Boeing. Messier-Dowty will not be able to carry out its $70 million capital
investment plan announced last June. There will be other
repercussions.
The same goes for international tourism, which has
experienced huge losses in Quebec City and no doubt in most of Canada's tourist
centres. What the Liberal government is doing with its propaganda policy is to
watch and wait until everything comes tumbling down, then take note of the
damage and see what it will be capable of investing.
Today the Minister of Finance said that the estimated
surplus is not as great as expected; we are heading for an economic recession.
He would not dare to use that term, of course. We will have a third or fourth
quarter that may not be as good as forecast.
Obviously that is the way to get out of the situation
without spending money and avoiding a deficit above all. No opposition party in
the House, the Bloc Quebecois included, has called for the government to aim
for a deficit. It is estimated, as we speak, that there will be a $13 billion
surplus this year and that is with the worst case scenarios for the third and
fourth quarters. That is reality.
Why do the Minister of Transport and all Liberal
members of the House not decide to demand the true picture of Canada's economic
situation from the Minister of Finance so they can pass it on to the
public?
Finally, the government should meet with
representatives of the airline, aviation and international tourism industries
and those involved in tourism in general who are having such a terrible time.
It should sit down with them and say “We are going to help you out”.
This is not what we feel. I realize that the
parliamentary secretary was not comfortable when he presented Bill C-34,
because the message really is that the government, the minister and the Prime
Minister are available and quick to take action but only once the damage has
been assessed. This is what is hard to accept for opposition members. The
government will once again wait until the airline, aviation and international
tourism industries collapse; it will wait until the house of cards comes
tumbling down and then look at the whole situation and take quick
action.
Naturally, this is hard to accept. As we speak,
workers, both men and women, have lost their jobs. There will be others,
particularly in Quebec, where the aviation and aerospace industries are
concentrated, but also across Canada, because Boeing has investments right
across the country. Large numbers of jobs are disappearing in this sector.
As for international tourism, it is not just Quebec
that is affected. Our province attracts a significant proportion of
international tourists, but there are cities in all regions of Canada that are
centres for tourism and these cities are definitely feeling the effects of the
September 11 events.
If government members in this House think that things
are going well for international tourism, they should visit the tourist
attractions in their ridings. They will realize that we are going through a
serious crisis that will have major consequences.
I hope that the parliamentary secretary will tell his
minister “Dear Minister, your availability and your quickness to react would be
more useful before everything collapses, as opposed to after”. This is the
message that the Bloc Quebecois wants to give to the House, and this is the
view that it will promote in the coming weeks.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order
paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
(1730)
[Translation]
The Acadians
The House resumed from March 27 consideration of the
motion.
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia--Matane,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and pride that I
rise today in this House to speak to Motion No. 241 brought forward by my
colleague, the hon. member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes, which reads as
follows:
That a humble Address be presented to
Her Excellency praying that she will intercede with Her Majesty to cause the
British Crown to present an official apology to the Acadian people for the
wrongs done to them in its name between 1755 and 1763. |
A lot has happened since we first started the debate on
this issue, on March 27, 2001. After dispelling doubts about his Acadian
origins, the hon. member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes travelled to Acadia on
three occasions to submit his proposal to the Acadian people.
His first visit, in May, took him to New Brunswick. His
second, in June, took him to Prince Edward Island for the annual general
meeting of the Société nationale des Acadiens. His latest one, in August,
coincided with the celebration of national Acadian day.
During these visits, my colleague made some important
contacts and broadened the support for his proposal within the Acadian
community.
One of the first to support Motion No. 241 brought
forward by my hon. colleague was a lawyer from Louisiana, Warren Perrin, who
has been fighting for more than 10 years to have the wrongs done to the Acadian
people during the deportation between 1755 and 1763 recognized.
A descendant of exiled Acadians, Warren Perrin has
become an unswerving defender of the rights of the francophones known today as
the Cajun and of the Acadian culture in Louisiana. Since 1990, Mr. Perrin has
tirelessly organized a petition to cause the British crown to apologize for the
deportation of the Acadians.
Besides the support of hundreds of individuals and
associations as well as history and international law experts, he has received
the support of the legislatures of Maine and Louisiana. Democrat Senator John
Breaux even intends to raise the issue before the American congress.
I find it bizarre that the Parliament of Canada, to
which our Acadian fellow countrymen elect representatives, is choosing to sit
on the sidelines, legislatively speaking, on this issue.
On June 2, 2001, the Société nationale des Acadiens
held a general assembly where it reconsidered its initial position and
unanimously supported Motion No. 241. The Société nationale des Acadiens has
great influence, credibility and a whole network of contacts in the maritimes
and throughout the world and it represents the Acadian community of Atlantic
Canada and elsewhere.
In the opinion of the members of the Société nationale
des Acadiens, this motion gives the Acadian people the opportunity to have the
wrongs done to their ancestors, as well as the concrete impacts that are still
felt today, officially recognized.
To its credit, the Société nationale des Acadiens
wanted to take this issue outside of the parliamentary framework. To legitimize
its position, on August 16, 2001, it set up an advisory committee led by
Maurice Basque, an historian and the director of the Centre d'études acadiennes
of the Université de Moncton. The main purpose of the committee was to consider
the historical, legislative and social issues surrounding Motion No.
241.
As indicated in its report, the committee heard from
about 140 individuals, associations, municipalities and Acadian organizations
from Canada, the United States and France. After analyzing all the proposals,
the advisory committee came out with a number of recommendations, including the
two following:
That the Société nationale des
Acadiens pursue its representations to cause the British crown to officially
recognize the historical wrongs done during the deportation of the
Acadians. |
That the motion be sponsored by all
Acadian members of the House of Commons, regardless of political
stripe. |
The third recommendation concerns the mustering of
Acadian forces to consolidate their promotional and developmental efforts in
order to catch up economically, socially and culturally. The final opinion is
that the Société nationale des Acadiens should continue to support the
Government of Canada in its efforts to promote cultural diversity and the
struggle against intolerance and in discrimination.
(1735)
In an article in the September 26, 2001 issue of La
Voix Acadienne, journalist Annie Racine lists some of the organizations
supporting the action by the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes:
|
--Motion M-241 has the support of the Société des Acadiennes et
des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick, of the Société nationale des Acadiens, of
the Association des juristes francophones and of the Association francophone
des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick. |
I should mention that this last association represents
40 municipalities in the province of New Brunswick and nearly 100,000
Acadians.
There seems to be a growing consensus around the motion
in the Acadian population, as Hector J. Cormier, an editorial writer, indicated
in Le Moniteur Acadien on September 27, 2001, and I quote:
|
--Acadians are justified in demanding apologies for the wrongs
done to their people in the deportation. It would put an end to unconscionable
treatment, to centuries-long suffering and to a collective fear it will take
long to dispel. |
Wrongs done by a group of individuals can have
repercussions over a lifetime, lasting decades. At some point someone has to
recognize the errors made and wounds must be healed to enable people to live in
the present, work for the future and stop feeling obliged to look back to the
pain of the past.
According to Philippe Ricard's article in L'Acadie
Nouvelle on September 20, 2001, “--Liberal members have to stop being
afraid of the “machinations” of the Bloc members. Because, if the motion were
defeated, Acadia and Acadians would slip further behind”. The wound would
remain unhealed.
The former member for West Nova, Conservative Mark
Muise, said in a speech in the House on November 30, 1999:
It took several centuries for
Acadians to recover from this tragedy. Some would argue that we are still
suffering. Historians do not all agree about this deportation. Was it a war
against the Acadians or an ethnic cleansing operation? This, I guess, depends
on the viewpoint of the historian. Nevertheless, no one can deny that this
tragedy happened and that the measures taken by Great Britain had serious
consequences. |
The motion itself does not call for compensation and
does not invite descendants of those who were deported to return to occupy
their land. It is simply aimed at obtaining an apology for the pain and
suffering inflicted upon the Acadian people.
The member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes is saying to
anyone who is willing to listen that if necessary he will have his motion
sponsored by a member of another political party in the House and he is even
willing to accept amendments to his motion, in keeping with the proposals
contained in the report from the Societé nationale des Acadiens.
Above all, this is not the motion of one member or one
political party but of the Acadian people. This initiative by the member for
Verchères--Les-Patriotes goes beyond the partisan considerations that usually
prevail in this House. It is part of the preparation for the 3rd Congrès
mondial acadien and the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the founding of
Acadia, which will take place in 2004.
Above all, however, we think that the 250th anniversary
of the deportation of Acadians, which will be commemorated all over the world
in 2005 by the Acadian diaspora, among others, would be a most appropriate time
for such an apology.
The parliamentary process is such that it will be a
long time before the House can vote on this motion. Let us use this time to
ensure that this issue is not affected by partisan considerations. Nobody would
gain anything should this motion be defeated. However, many people would lose a
lot, and they are not necessarily the ones that the opponents of this motion
want to punish by voting against it.
What message would we be sending to the world should
that happen? That the Canadian parliamentary system is unable to disregard the
origin of an initiative when making a decision.
Most importantly, what message would we be sending to
the Acadian people? That the deportation is an event that is not worth
recognizing here in parliament? That this issue is not important enough for the
elected representatives of the people to show some openness and maturity in
dealing with it? That parliamentarians could not reach the type of consensus
that we witnessed with regard to many other often less significant issues? In
any case, everybody comes out a loser.
(1740)
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark--Carleton,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I will be voting
against Motion No. 241. My reasons for doing so are twofold.
First, I feel that this motion is based on a faulty
premise, that being that guilt can be collective and can be passed on from one
generation to the next.
Second, despite the good intentions of those who
drafted it, the motion seems to attribute ultimate responsibility for the
expulsion of the Acadians to the crown, which is not an accurate reading of the
events of 1755. A more historically accurate reading would lay blame with the
colonial governors of New England and the pioneers they represented.
I will begin with the historical argument and come back
later to the philosophical one.
Many of the facts surrounding the deportation of the
Acadians are unchallenged. In 1755, the colonial authorities began a process of
uprooting and deporting that part of the Acadian population which had settled
on British lands, beginning with the centre of the Acadian colony along the
east shore of the Bay of Fundy.
Nova Scotia's Governor Lawrence, and Governor Shirley,
commander in chief of the British forces in New England, began by seizing
colonists' firearms to prevent them from using force to resist. Then they took
a large number of adult males hostage in order to guarantee the docility of
their families at the time of deportation.
In the years that followed, approximately
three-quarters of the total Acadian population, or 13,000 people, were
deported. Some of these people were sent to New England, others to Louisian,
and still others were returned to France.
Although we know with certainty the degree of suffering
caused by the deportations between 1755 and 1763, it is much more difficult to
pin down historical responsibility for them. One thing is certain and that is
that governors Lawrence and Shirley were at the heart of the decision making
and must bear ultimate responsibility, but nothing proves that they acted with
the approval of the parliament of Westminster.
According to the most commonly accepted version of
events, Lawrence acted with the authorization of the local council in Nova
Scotia, and parliament and King George did not take part in the planning of the
deportations.
More recently, Roger Paradis, a professor of history at
the University of Maine, has uncovered documentary evidence suggesting that the
authorities in London were involved. He cites a bill, sent to London in 1758 by
Governor Lawrence, listing the expenditures incurred for the deportation. He
has also revealed the existence of a circular sent by Lawrence to governors of
the New England colonies, which presumes that these governors were, at the very
least, aware of the events taking place in Acadia.
However, what strikes me is that even in this
revisionist interpretation of history, the colonial authorities in Acadia and
New England take on the primary responsibility for the acts committed while the
crown only has a secondary responsibility. Moreover, it is obvious that the
first ones to benefit from the military security that was increased as a result
of ethnic cleansing in Acadia were the New England pioneers and specifically
those living in the portion of the colony of Massachusetts then known as the
“District of Maine”.
I emphasize that I will not support the notion of a
collective or hereditary guilt, but even if I did support it, I think that the
first collective excuses that should be conveyed to the Acadian people should
come from the government of Maine.
(1745)
It is therefore interesting to know that on April 13,
1994, the Maine legislative assembly passed a resolution regarding the
deportation of the Acadians. It was carefully drafted in such a way that the
blame is laid exclusively on the British, and it never hints at the fact that
Maine, a sovereign state, or its predecessor, the English colony of
Massachusetts Bay, could have been involved in any way. I think that the best
we can say about this statement is that it comes from a serious
misinterpretation of history.
Unfortunately, the motion before us today is based on
the same mistake. The motion calls on the crown to “present an official apology
to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them in its name”. However, the
fact that the deportation was ordered in the name of the British crown does not
mean that the crown itself was the primary culprit, even in 1755.
Similarly, history is full of outrageous acts committed
in the name of various religions or in the name of the people of one territory
or another, while the authority named had very little to do, if anything, with
the harm that was done in its name. A more historically accurate motion could
demand official apologies from the legislative assemblies of each of the New
England states for the harm done in their interests and with their
complicity.
[English]
I should be clear about the fact that I would oppose
this too. I would do so because I do not accept the notion that an institution
can maintain a heritage of collective guilt which is imposed upon successive
generations of those who become members of that institution or who fall under
its protection.
It seems to me that some participants in the debate
over this motion and in similar debates that have occurred in the past have
contemplated two quite different concepts. The first concept is the
expectation, which I regard as legitimate, that all participants in the public
life of a civilized society should adopt a moral attitude toward the past. A
moral attitude involves recognizing and embracing those past actions that are
regarded as good and just and rejecting those that are regarded as unjust or
monstrous.
The second concept is the idea that guilt for a past
injustice can be passed on, institutionally and collectively, in precisely the
same way that the residual effects of that wrong continue to have some impact
on the descendants of those who suffered the initial wrong. This is simply
untrue.
The adoption of a moral attitude by an actor in
political life allows us, as potential voters or as potential political allies,
to assess how that individual might act in the future should he or she be a
decision maker in some similar future circumstance. Such a calculation is
necessary in a system of representative democracy because it is always
conceivable that one can win an election in a time of peace and then find that
his or her mandate extends into a period of unexpected turmoil or war. After
the events of September 11, I think we can see the utility of such
expectations.
By contrast, an attitude of collective guilt or
responsibility, or worse yet, of expecting others to assume a mantle of guilt
or responsibility for acts in which they themselves did not take part, strikes
me as being of no utility at all.
A debate similar to the one taking place today took
place in this House 17 years ago on Pierre Trudeau's last day as prime
minister. He was asked by Brian Mulroney in question period to issue an apology
for the wartime internment of Canadians of Japanese descent. Trudeau's response
reveals a subtle grasp to the distinction that I am attempting of draw here
today.
He said:
I do not see how I can apologize for
some historic event to which we...were not a party. We can regret that it
happened. But why...say that an apology is much better than an expression of
regret? |
I do not think that it is the purpose
of a government to right the past. It cannot re-write history. It is our
purpose to be just in our time-- |
This does not excuse us from a responsibility to adopt
a moral attitude of condemnation toward this great wrong any more than we can
adopt an attitude of moral neutrality toward the monstrous evils of more recent
times. As moral actors, we need to recognize the existence of these past
wrongs, to identify them to our fellow citizens and to do all that we can to
ensure that no modern version of this wrong can occur.
Therefore, let us vote against this motion in its
present form, but let us vote for it if it is reintroduced in the House in a
form that allows us to express, without apology, our sorrow over this past
wrong and if it allows us, without condemning others, to indicate our
determination that no such wrong will ever in the future be tolerated on
Canadian soil.
(1750)
[Translation]
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique--Mactaquac,
Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in speaking today to
Motion No. 241 by the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes.
Our Bloc Quebecois colleague would like the British
crown to offer apologies for the deportation of the Acadians in 1755, which in
Acadia is still called the “Grand Dérangement”.
The Acadian people suffered terribly in this period of
our history. The government tried to get rid of the Acadians by deporting them
and dividing them to better assimilate them.
The Acadian people are still here, ever more vibrant
thanks to their artists, writers, actors and even politicians.
We all recognize that our country's history includes
some darker and more painful events. Unfortunately, the “Grand Dérangement” is
one such event.
However, we sincerely believe that we cannot live in
the past, but must continue to build this country, as have past generations of
Acadians.
I have said that we should not live in the past, but I
do not think we should forget our history either. We have to draw from its
strengths and from its weaknesses. I have also said that we must keep on
building this country, building our Canada. We here in the House all know that
it is not a goal that is shared by the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes or
the other members of his party.
The member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes considers
himself to be the advocate for the Acadian people; at least that is what he
wants us to believe by bringing this motion forward in the House. When he spoke
in the House on March 27, my colleague, the member for Madawaska--Restigouche,
referred to the logic of the Bloc Quebecois, explaining that the member for
Verchères--Les-Patriotes' sudden interest for the fate of Acadians and of
francophones outside of Quebec was surprising.
This is the main thing. It is this logic that we have
to question. In fact, the real question is quite simple. We have to ask
ourselves why. Why this sudden interest from the Bloc for the Acadians? What
motivates this interest?
We all know the main goal that the party of the member
for Verchères--Les-Patriotes is pursuing. He and his colleagues in the Bloc
have but one goal, the destruction of this country. Unlike the other members of
this House, they are not here to work toward making Canada a better and safer
place to live.
Why is the Bloc Quebecois suddenly so interested in the
plight of Acadians and francophones outside Quebec? We all know that according
to the Bloc Quebecois logic there are those who are saved, who live in Quebec,
and those who are lost, who live outside the promised land.
My colleague from Madawaska--Restigouche already said
that Acadians helped build this country. They worked hard to protect their
culture and their identity. They do not need the help of the Bloc Quebecois.
Acadians founded schools, colleges, universities,
theatres, newspapers and publishing houses. They achieved extraordinary
cultural success in areas such as theatre, cinema, visual arts, music and
literature. They gave the world writers, poets, artists, musicians and singers.
They developed an impressive network of businesses and created jobs.
(1755)
They helped make Canada what it is today. They did not
wait to be taken by the hand and have decisions made for them. Instead of doing
what is being proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, I think we should focus on
celebrating and recognizing the enormous contribution of the Acadian people to
this great country that is Canada.
Motion No. 241 proposed by the member for
Verchères--Les-Patriotes hides the true intentions of its sponsor and his
party. For that reason, we cannot support it.
I will conclude with a quote that truly reflects the
position of the Bloc Quebecois. Here is what the Bloc member for
Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis said on September 30, 1997:
I have no objection to there being a
French Canadian people. But I am no longer part of that group. When I was
growing up, I was taught in school that I was a French Canadian. Later on, I
was told that I was a Quebecer and I like that better. But I will not be
faulted for preferring to be a Quebecer to being a French Canadian. As a French
Canadian, I am a second class citizen. As a Quebecer, I am a first class
citizen. That is the difference. |
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great privilege to rise in the
House to debate Motion No. 241 on behalf of the Acadian residents of West
Chezzetcook and Grand Desert in Nova Scotia.
It is a sin and a shame that the member for
Tobique--Mactaquac whom I respect very much would play politics with this
serious and compassionate motion. The member for Lanark--Carleton is trying to
rewrite history.
I would suspect that probably not one person from his
caucus has ever gone to Grand Pré and read the 300 names on the stone in the
church in Grand Pré which is in Wolfville, Nova Scotia.
It is one of the most beautiful sites in all of Canada.
It is a place of remembrance. It is a sort of Holy Grail for all Acadians to
visit when they come to Nova Scotia. They come from around the world to Grand
Pré to worship and pray for those people who were expelled in 1755. It is a sin
that these people would play politics on a motion of this regard.
All we are asking is that the House of Commons send a
message to the Queen through parliament to request an apology. It does not say
when. Nor does it have to be tomorrow. We are only asking that it be given
careful consideration.
The Queen is making a visit to Canada in 2002. The
Acadian festival is happening in Nova Scotia in 2004 and there is another
festival in 2005. The Queen has a lot of time in which to decide. We owe it to
the crown to allow it time to mull this over and give it careful consideration.
We should not play politics with the motion. It is a sin that we get caught up
in this. It is no wonder that many minorities in the country, including
Acadians, give up on parliament so easily.
Every Acadian association supports the motion. It is
really misleading for the minister responsible for official languages, for whom
I have great respect, to say there is no support coming from the Acadian group.
It is simply not true, as every association supports the motion.
All that Acadians are asking for is the correction of
an historic wrong. The Pope apologized to the Jewish nation for the expulsion
of Jews during the war. Canadian churches apologized for the residential
schools. Mr. Mulroney, a former prime minister, stood in the House and
apologized for Japanese internments during the war.
In an era of compassion and forgiveness we should be
able to apologize on behalf of the Queen, when she comes to Canada or through
other means that she may decide, for the expulsion of Acadians in 1755.
For anyone to assume that the king at the time was
unaware of the actions in the colonies is simply nonsense. That kind of talk
originates from the south end of a northbound cow. It is simply unacceptable.
I must say how proud we all were in Nova Scotia when
the Governor General of Canada, Roméo LeBlanc, a very proud and distinguished
gentleman, became the first Acadian to reach the highest post in our land. I am
also very proud to see his son sitting in parliament today.
The New Democratic Party also had a first. In 1997 the
first two Acadians ever elected to the House of Commons under the New
Democratic banner were the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst, our party whip,
and a previous member who jumped ship, Angela Vautour. They were two Acadians
who were very proud to run in New Brunswick under the Acadian banner.
We are very proud to have had them in our caucus. We
are very proud of our whip for the job that he does. He brings the passion and
the caring of the Acadian community to our caucus and to the House of Commons
on a daily basis. It is a voice that I am sure the House of Commons will hear
for many years to come.
It is also remarkable that the Minister of State for
the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, who is from West Nova, does not
support the motion. When one goes through West Nova one can see the pride and
the outstanding ability of the Acadian people. Their flag, language and culture
are everywhere.
(1800)
In the two communities I represent, West Chezzetcook
and Grand Desert, the people are very proud to be Acadian and very proud to be
part of Nova Scotia and part of the greater country of Canada.
It is remarkable that the minister for ACOA would not
want to support this motion when ACOA just gave $4 million to the Grand Pré
site. The government gave $4 million in tax dollars in order to build up the
site, to make it better, to improve the historical aspect of Grand Pré. On the
one hand he gives the money to support them and on the other hand, in a
hypocritical sense, he turns around and will not support the motion. It is
absolutely incredible.
Here is what I recommend to everyone in the House. If
members really want a taste and a feel of what Acadian culture is all about
they should visit Grand Pré, Nova Scotia. They will not be disappointed. Then
members can take a trip to the Acadian villages throughout all of Nova Scotia,
New Brunswick, parts of P.E.I. and to everywhere else Acadians reside.
What happened to the Acadians from 1755 to 1763 was a
sin. Thousands of people were ejected from their land. These were hard working
people who wanted nothing to do with war. All they wanted to do was farm their
land, look after their children and live in peace. They were not allowed to
because they refused to swear an oath to the king. Because of that they were
told either they were with us or against us. At that time they were kicked
out.
Members can imagine that happening. All those families
suffered greatly from it. Families were separated. I know of one family, that
of Joe Jacquard of Wedgeport, Nova Scotia. He told me the story of his
great-great-grandfather hiding in the woods at that time to get away from the
English.
Many of the Acadians there have the oral histories of
what happened to their families. The names of those original families are in
the church in Grand Pré. I recommend that everyone have a look at it,
especially the member for Lanark--Carleton. His was a disgraceful display. I
respect the man having his opinion in the House of Commons, but to try to
rewrite history and say that we do not have any responsibility in today's
society for something that happened is simply nonsense. I stand in the House
and I refute the hon. member's speech because it is simply wrong.
Many things have happened because of this event. My
wife is from Longueuil, Quebec and my daughter is in full French immersion, and
what the Acadian people have brought to my family is absolutely fabulous. I
know I am not very good at the English language, let alone the French language,
but I cannot thank the Acadian population of my province enough for what they
have done, not only for our communities but for our way of life and the
diversity of our culture.
Lately we have been talking about the diversity of
cultures in Canada with our Arab and Muslim people. We should not forget that
the Acadians themselves gave us a diversity of culture that was fabulous, that
was fantastic. We are indebted to those people. Every single one of them
through their associations is asking for this motion to be passed. I again
encourage the House to carefully reflect upon the motion, damn well keep
politics out of it and just reflect on what we should do to make an historic
wrong right.
All the Acadians are asking for is the ability to have
an apology from the Queen and to allow the Queen to do it herself. Allow the
House to be mature enough to have the debate, move it in a positive sense and
allow Her Majesty to make that decision. We should not do it, and there should
be no sleazy politics about it.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot thank you enough for the
opportunity to speak to this today on behalf of all the Acadians of West
Chezzetcook and Grand Desert and anywhere in my riding, and especially on
behalf of my colleague, the MLA Kevin Deveaux, himself an Acadian and an
elected official to the assembly in the Province House in Nova Scotia, and many
others.
We stand in the House to support Motion No. 241 and
also to support our great colleague from Acadie--Bathurst. I cannot say his
name, but he is our whip as well.
(1805)
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond--Arthabaska,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I rise this
evening to speak to the motion of our colleague, the member for
Verchères--Les-Patriotes.
Motion No. 241 got people talking and it still has
people talking. Some groups and some members are not comfortable with the idea
of this motion and they are both right and wrong, depending on the perspective.
The coalition has a tradition of free votes in the case
of private members' bills. Right now it is interesting to hear what members of
the Bloc, of the New Democratic Party and of all other parties have to
say.
Another important point is the fact that things were
properly done; frankly, that increases the credibility of the whole process.
The Société nationale des Acadiens asked that the historical context be taken
into consideration and in my opinion that was well done.
We will remember that in the beginning we were afraid
of the nasty separatists. Even in the coalition, which did not exist then, we
thought these people were nasty separatists and therefore they certainly had a
hidden agenda. Maybe the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes does have a hidden
agenda. It could be, but that is his problem. Nevertheless we must take the
motion as it is and raise our hats to the Bloc member who went to Acadia to
meet the people.
If I had doubts about the motion's intellectual
honesty, not the member's intellectual honesty, but the motion's intellectual
honesty, I think the Acadian people have done remarkable work. This relieves me
of a certain weight of justification.
One must examine the motion as it stands. We can twist
our history a little bit to determine who was responsible. It could be that
responsible government as we know it today did not exist then, but I will
remind the member of the Canadian Alliance who has just spoken that the
empire's responsibility was everywhere.
When one says that we are not attacking anyone, the
motion is not attacking anyone. We are not asking the Queen, the crown. Here
again, it was done properly. We are not talking about an individual. We are
talking about an historical event and the consequences of the deportation of
the Acadians. The consequences did not last only a few years. They are still
felt today.
Let us imagine 10,000, 12,000 or 14,000 Acadians, men,
women and children, living in a territory that is now part of Canada. Things
have changed over the last 10 or 15 years, but we know what francophones could
do as to the number of children in a family. At that time, families had a lot
of children. That would have changed everything and there would have been more
francophones in the Atlantic provinces.
Having said that, let me say that the Acadian people
have met incredible challenges; all they were a minority that faced the
deportation and experienced serious problems afterwards, both with the British
crown and the Canadian government, and had to struggle for decades. Hats off to
them.
I have learned a lot. I even read a bit about the
history of the deportation to get to know the context a little better. For my
part, I will support the motion. I will ask for an admission and I will say “I
am sorry, this does not mean that you are a bad person today”. We can
acknowledge historic events.
It is particularly important to amend this motion
because some see it as being negative with regard to the monarchy. It is not
that at all. This could be done in the context of celebrations, for example
during the third congrès mondial acadien, or the 250th anniversary or the 400th
anniversary of the arrival of Acadians in America. We could do that. It could
be positive.
The governor general could, as part of the
celebrations, read a nice speech and say “We recognize our faults. Having said
that, we will work together and we will see to it that the Acadian people keep
on developing and prospering in this country”. That is all. The motion involves
no money.
In this regard, I praise the work done by the member
for Verchères--Les-Patriotes. More than that, I would say that he is open to
changes, or rather to improvements. However, those across the way are slamming
the door shut.
(1810)
I would like to say to my colleagues opposite “Do not
send the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to Acadia too often, because it
is the whole federal government that will lose its credibility”. Because the
motion comes from a Bloc member, it is not good? Because a motion comes from an
Alliance member, a NDP member or a coalition member, it is not good? We must
take the time, we are adults, to look at what the motion is all
about.
That said, it is not because one is a nasty separatist
that people should denigrate everything one does. On the contrary. I believe
that in the last decade we have learned a lot about respect for parliamentary
traditions thanks to members of the Bloc Quebecois and other parties,
especially the Bloc.
The crown has apologized on several occasions. A number
of people mentioned the Boer War in South Africa and the Maori in New Zealand.
These situations did not result in a collective uprising. It is an apology. One
recognizes an historical fact and says “I apologize”.
In recognizing this historical fact, one moves toward a
much more positive action. No one is being asked to kneel down and apologize
for what was done. It is simply an historical fact and life goes on. We know
there was even a request not long after the deportation of the Acadians, in
1763, made to the crown. With everything that had just happened, this was fresh
in their memory. Members will understand that the timing was perhaps not very
good, but there were still some efforts made.
In 1988, some efforts were also made from the other
side of the border, by an American. This even went all the way to the office of
the then prime minister, Mrs. Thatcher, but nothing came of it. But considering
what is coming, this could be done.
I am not at all uncomfortable with this. Supporting
this motion does not make me an anti-monarchist, nor am I pointing a finger at
anyone. I would especially like the government members who are Acadian to give
this matter some thought.
Let us recall that there were two ridings that were
Conservative ridings and will certainly become Conservative ridings again after
the next election, namely
Tobique--Mactaquac and
West Nova. I am quite
disappointed that the two Acadian members representing these ridings do not
support the motion. We know that in September 2000, prior to the last election
campaign,
West Nova MP Mark Muise
was in favour of the motion. I am sure that Gilles Bernier, the former member
for
Tobique--Mactaquac,
would also have supported the motion.
We must stand up and be counted. This is not an attack
against any group or person or against the crown, but quite simply an
acknowledgment. Even my former colleague, Angela Vautour, would have supported
this motion.
I am asking the members opposite to keep an open mind.
The party line is one thing, but for Acadian members, what they feel in their
hearts may be more important at this stage. The reason Acadians managed to
survive and prosper in the face of all difficulties is that they had their
hearts in the right place. I hope our Acadian colleagues in this House will be
guided by the same sentiments.
We are not trying to rewrite history, obviously. This
is not about pointing a finger, nor is it about asking for money in reparation.
This is not at all the case. Governments since 1867 have also made mistakes and
it is well for apologies to be forthcoming. There have been a great many wrongs
since 1867 toward the Ffrst nations of Canada. These need to be acknowledged
and apologies made. The Acadian people experienced something was absolutely
horrible and managed to survive despite everything. Recognizing this fact by
supporting this motion is a positive step.
I would once again like to congratulate the member for
Verchères--Les-Patriotes
on the tremendous work he has done. Clearly he has a reputation such that
people are wary of everything he does. In this case, he has recognized an
historic event suffered by a people and he come up with a positive gesture for
the future.
(1815)
[English]
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape
Breton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for this
opportunity to respond to the member for
Verchères--Les-Patriotes
and to his motion asking the Governor General to intercede with Her Majesty,
the Queen of England, to present an official apology to the Acadian people for
wrongs done in its name between 1755 and 1763.
Canada's history, like that of all countries, has
skeletons in its closet of which we are not proud. These are events that took
place sometimes hundreds of years ago, such as in the case of the Acadian
deportation. History can sometimes be cruel, however, Canada's history does not
include only injustices. It is a history which for the most part is one of
progress and growth. Today we must look to the future.
Canada's Acadian community is not one but many
communities spread throughout the Atlantic provinces. In New Brunswick,
Acadians are concentrated in the southeast, the northeast and the northwest,
with groups in Fredericton and Saint John.
In Nova Scotia there are dynamic communities in
Baie-Sainte-Marie on the southwestern coast and in my own constituency of
Bras d'Or--Cape Breton.
Both Île-Madame and the Chéticamp region are beautiful communities, proud and
progressive.
In Prince Edward Island Acadians are in the region of
Évangéline. In Newfoundland they are found near Cape St. Georges and in
Saint-Jean and in Labrador City. They are also situated at Îles-de-la-Madeleine
in the Gaspé, in the Montreal region and in western Canada. All these
communities, no matter how big or small, are testament to the vitality of
Canada's people and our two official languages.
It takes extraordinary courage and strength to develop
a community which lives in a minority situation. The members of the Acadian
communities have founded schools, colleges and universities. They have
established theatres, newspapers and publishing houses. They have made
outstanding strides in culture, theatre, cinema, visual arts and music as well
as in literature. They have blessed the world with writers, poets, artists,
dancers, musicians and singers. They have established an impressive network of
businesses and created jobs.
The Acadians of Canada are part of what makes Canada
able to be successful and prosper. The Government of Canada recognizes this
dynamic and vital contribution to Canadian society. They count among the seven
million people in Canada who speak, sing, write, work and live in French. These
francophones are proof of the vitality and extraordinary determination to grow
and expand on a continent with an anglophone majority.
The English and French languages and the people who
speak them have shaped Canada and helped define its identity. Canada's
linguistic duality has its origins in the very nature of our country. It is
hard to look at Canada today without seeing the importance of these two
languages and their communities within Canadian society.
The official languages support programs of the
Department of Canadian Heritage are designed to provide opportunities for
Canadians to fully appreciate and profit from our rich linguistic heritage. The
Government of Canada believes that the great majority of Canadians share these
goals.
Few would doubt the importance of education to any
community. Through the support for minority language education, the Department
of Canadian Heritage works toward the full participation of both language
groups in all aspects of Canadian life.
These programs not only further the vital cultural
contribution of the English and French speaking minority communities, but also
promote access to the economic mainstream. For instance, progress in the area
of French language minority education has had a prominent role in lowering
illiteracy and school dropout rates and increasing post-secondary
attendance.
Thirty years ago the quality and availability of French
language minority education was not only a national disgrace but also a
significant barrier to the development and survival of francophone communities
throughout Canada. We set out to change this. In the process, schools were
built where none had existed. Community centres were built where none had
existed. Colleges were built where none had existed.
We have worked with the provinces and with francophone
and Acadian parents from one end of the country to the other. The economic
value of quality public education in their language for the 1.6 million
Canadians who are part of official language minority communities cannot be
underestimated.
(1820)
All Canadians have a stake in minority language
education programs. In their absence, as the bilingualism and bicultural
commission pointed out, these Canadians would not be able to make their
potential contribution to society. The Department of Canadian Heritage, in
particular the official languages support programs branch, has concluded a
series of agreements which greatly benefit the Acadian and francophone
populations of Canada.
Collaboration between both levels of government within
the framework of the official languages and education program allows more than
150,000 young people from official minority language communities to study in
their language in 700 elementary and secondary schools in all regions of the
country, and 18.5% of these schools are situated in the Atlantic
provinces.
The official languages and education program
contributes to the financing of a network of 19 francophone colleges and
universities outside Quebec, many of which are located in the Atlantic
provinces and which serve the Acadian population. It is also through these
programs that 2.7 million young Canadians are learning a second official
language, including more than 318,000 in immersion classes, thus greatly
increasing the number of Canadians with an appreciation for the French language
and culture.
While I will not go into details about all the good
work that is being done, I would like to outline some of the noteworthy
accomplishments which have been achieved in minority education and which have
directly benefited the Acadian communities over the past few years.
In Nova Scotia, major roles in French education are
played by Collège de l'Acadie, to which I will speak in more detail, and
Université Sainte-Anne, which has been funded for many years by the federal
government.
Created in 1988, Collège de l'Acadie is now a key
institution within the francophone and Acadian communities. Having two in my
own constituency, I certainly can speak to the role they play.
The considerable distances that separate the different
Acadian regions of the province could have posed problems with respect to the
service delivery but, undiscouraged, the Acadians adjusted and established
training centres attached to Collège de l'Acadie throughout the territory.
There are now seven and there is no doubt that these training centres
contribute directly to the economic expansion and development of the Acadian
communities.
The college and its training centres have state of the
art technological tools such as video conferencing and teleconferencing,
offering superior distance education programs. On the eve of a new focus on
knowledge and communications, a French language distance education capacity is
certainly a sign of prosperity for francophones and Acadians in
Canada.
Also in Nova Scotia, federal funds have supported the
construction and expansion of the Carrefour du Grand Havre school and community
centre in Dartmouth. The opening of the Étoile school and community centre in
my neighbouring constituency of Sydney--Victoria was equally an occasion to
celebrate a victory for the francophone population in the greater Sydney area.
Along with offering quality education in French, it is a centre where the
Acadian community can gather together as well as a place to promote the Acadian
culture.
In New Brunswick, the federal government also has
widely and consistently supported the development of well established
institutions, such as the University of Moncton. It, like any other educational
institution, plays an important role as an engine of social, economic and
cultural development for the Acadian communities.
Created in 1963, the University of Moncton is the
second largest university in New Brunswick and the biggest French language
Canadian university outside of Quebec. It has three campuses: Moncton in the
southeast, Edmundston in the northwest, and Shippagan in the northeast. There
is no question that the University of Moncton contributes directly to the
vitality and dynamism of the francophone and Acadian communities of
Canada.
Also in New Brunswick, federal funds have helped in the
construction of three school community centres at Fredericton, Miramichi and
Saint John, as well as funding for four community colleges. In Prince Edward
Island another community centre has been established. Newfoundland's Acadians
can soon be celebrating the signing of an agreement with the federal government
for francophone school management.
The federal government also supports the Acadian
associations that bring Acadian institutions and organizations
together.
(1825)
These associations work hard for the Acadian cause and
have over the years brought about many positive changes. There is no doubt the
Acadian deportation is an event that ranks among the great tragedies of history
in Canada.
That fact and the effects of it should never be
forgotten or diminished in our memories. Historic and commemorative venues,
such as Grand Pré, have been established so that Canadians will always remember
this part of our history.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
The hon. member for Laval Centre. I would point out
that she only has three minutes left.
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval
Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, knowing how wise the hon. members are, I
wish to seek unanimous consent to use the 10 minutes provided to speak to
motion No. 241.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Madeleine
Dalphond-Guiral:
Mr. Speaker, now, at the beginning of October, I have
just lost another illusion of mine, but not to worry, I will keep on
smiling.
I am pleased to take part today in the passionate
debate on Motion No. 241 tabled by my hon. colleague, the member for
Verchères—Les-Patriotes.
I am even more pleased to speak to this issue because a
lot of people have taken the time to express their views on this motion, which
has become very significant because of the importance it has for many of our
citizens.
There are two points I want to make here. Because of
the great number of comments that have been made, I cannot guess as to the
political stripe of all the people who made them. But given the law of
averages, I would find it very surprising and even unthinkable that all these
people share my political opinions.
However, each and every one of them supported this
motion unconditionally, as if it were the most natural thing to do in the
world.
The people watching this may ask why I am making these
two points. It seems that this issue has become the focus of the debate on the
motion, although it should not even be addressed during our
discussions.
Moreover, there was an unfortunate misunderstanding
during the weeks following the tabling of this motion. Some people have
suggested that my hon. colleague from Verchères—Les-Patriotes was playing petty
politics by putting forward Motion No. 241, while others showed more respect
and simply stated that they would wait to find out the position of the Acadian
community on this issue.
Now that this misunderstanding is behind us, the
situation has cleared up. The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes has
publicly demonstrated that there was absolutely no partisanship behind his
tabling of Motion No. 241.
Moreover, the consultation process in which Acadians
took part ended yesterday with the tabling of the report of the advisory
committee set up by the Société nationale des Acadiens.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that this issue will unfold
in the next hour of debate. You can count on my being here.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
The time provided for the consideration of private
members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the
order of precedence on the order paper.
Adjournment Proceedings
[Adjournment Debate]
* * *
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
* * *
(1830)
[English]
Airline
Industry
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, since I first stood in the House two weeks
ago today to ask the Minister of Transport about the problems facing Canada's
airlines, a number of things have happened.
In answering my question, the minister said that
neither the Bush administration nor the American congress had decided on any
measure to help the U.S. airline industry. Yet two days later both the U.S.
house of representatives and the senate passed identical legislation to assist
the American airline industry. The president signed the legislation into law
the following day.
Contrast that with the response of the government which
only yesterday announced its compensation package to Canada's airlines for the
direct losses they incurred as a result of the closure of Canada's airspace. It
took the government an additional week and a half to address the obvious, which
is that Canada should compensate the airlines for these losses. That was a
no-brainer. Canadians support that. There was overwhelming support from every
party in the House for that concept.
However the American legislation went further than
direct compensation. It was also designed to offset the loss of passenger
revenue between September 11 and December 21, 2001. Whether one agrees with
that kind of an action or not, the result is that American air carriers flying
transborder routes in direct competition with Canadian airlines will be
subsidized while the Canadian air carriers that compete with American air
carriers will not. What does the government do about that discrepancy?
Nothing.
With regard to security, the Americans have again acted
quickly. The U.S. government has taken control of airport security. It has
reintroduced the use of air marshals and has developed tough new policies. What
has the Government of Canada done? It told Canadian pilots to lock the cockpit
door and keep it closed. That is just one more example of the government
reacting with too little too late.
While I agree that we cannot always compare ourselves
to the Americans, in this instance we cannot afford not to reach a certain
level of security or to be any less diligent in providing security for Canadian
travellers or any travellers on Canadian airlines.
What does the government do now? I will agree that
there are no easy fixes. It will not be easy for the government to resolve the
issues that are before the airline industry.
For one thing, not all the airlines in Canada are in
the same shape. It is well documented. When the market closed today, Air
Canada's shares were listed at $2.48, down from a 12 month high of $17.50 last
November and a pre-September 11 value of $6. WestJet's shares, on the other
hand, at today's close, were at $19, down from its 12 month high but up from
its pre-September 11 value of $17.
It is quite clear that not all Canadian airlines are in
the same shape. The only way the government can help Air Canada to resolve its
problems is to eliminate the 15% limit on domestic ownership of Air Canada's
shares.
Is the government prepared to eliminate the 15%
ownership restriction and allow the private sector to save Air
Canada?
(1835)
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and congratulate her
on her interest in a matter of extreme importance and timeliness. Transport
Canada acknowledges that the implementation of enhanced security measures is
putting enormous pressure on airports and air carriers.
The shutting down of airports for a number of days
obviously led to marked decreases in revenue. I would, however, point out that
the government's contribution of $160 million is connected to the closing down
of air space for a number of days, which obviously had significant impact on
the carriers.
This is an arrangement that compensates airlines for
the Government of Canada's decision to close down Canadian air space. It
provides airlines and operators of specialized air services with the funds they
have been so anxiously awaiting, which will enable them to recover from the
abrupt interruption of their activities.
An examination of the financial data was carried out
with executives directly involved in this sector. The Air Transport Association
was also involved in assessing the costs.
Those who will be directly concerned and will benefit
from that allocation of funds are obviously air carriers and service
operators.
With this compensation package, Transport Canada and
the federal government continue to monitor the situation very closely. Our main
concern is of course the security and safety of the travelling
public.
* * *
[English]
Harbours
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, this is an important opportunity during
what we commonly call the late show to discuss harbour bottoms.
The government has not only made a conscious decision
through Transport Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to divest
itself of wharves and wharf infrastructure, but now it has gone a step further
and fully intends to divest itself of the very bottoms of the harbours. That is
extremely problematic for the South Shore of Nova Scotia, which is a very
important player in the fishing industry. A number of wharves have been
divested already.
An hon. member: Digby was divested.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: My colleague mentioned Digby
wharf.
There is a real concern on behalf of the mayors, the
MLAs in the provincial legislature and the provincial government that the
federal government is divesting itself of harbour bottoms.
I raised a question in the House regarding the actual
selling of the harbour bottoms because that is exactly what is going to happen.
In several of these harbours, in particular the harbour
of Bridgewater, which goes several kilometres up the LaHave River, and the
harbour of Shelbourne, which is several kilometres long, if the government
actually sold the bottoms of those harbours to a private individual, then what
would happen to them?
Who would be responsible for any environmental
assessment or environmental cleanup? Would that person own all the rights to
the harbour? Could we set lobster gear on the bottom of the harbour? Could we
set nets on the harbour? Would the person put the navigational aids in that
harbour? Would he or she be responsible for the moorings not only for the
commercial fishery but for the recreational boaters? Would he or she be
responsible for harbours in front of the yacht clubs and sheltered coves where
recreational boaters would be?
On June 8, as a supplementary to my question, my
colleague from St. John's West asked the Minister of the Environment whether or
not this was perhaps some attempt to avoid the responsibility for environmental
cleanup in ports such as Liverpool or Lunenburg which have been shipbuilding
centres for hundreds of years. There are perhaps things in the mud that are
secure there, lead and other toxic chemicals or substances, that would be the
responsibility of the federal government. As long as that bottom is not
disturbed, that bottom is perfectly safe. If that bottom were disturbed, would
there be a problem?
There are way too many unanswered questions.
It should be noted that the mayors of the towns on the
South Shore, the wardens of the municipalities, the municipal councillors, the
MLAs and the provincial government are all against the federal government
divesting itself of the harbour bottoms.
It is inconceivable that the federal government would
want to sell the harbour bottoms. It should maintain authority over them. If an
individual wants to build a wharf or wants to put moorings in for recreational
boating or for a commercial fishery venture, then he or she could go to the
federal government and get the appropriate permits. However, the federal
government absolutely must maintain control and ownership of what is under the
salt water.
(1840)
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that in 1995 the
government put in place the national marine policy, which has allowed for the
commercialization of the operations of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the creation of
19 Canada port authorities and the divestiture of many public harbours under
which came the divestiture of the harbour bottoms.
The divestiture of harbour bottoms is part of the
national marine policy. Transport Canada owns 43 of them. Obviously they were
first offered to federal departments and then to the various provinces.
In Nova Scotia, negotiations started up with top
officials. Transport Canada manages 15 harbour bottoms in Nova Scotia.
Discussions are going on and these are things that must not be done hastily.
Obviously there are also benefits related to harbour
dues, since in Nova Scotia alone there might be potential savings of
$900,000.
When a harbour bottom is divested, it is important to
remember that the federal government will continue to enforce federal laws,
including the Canada Shipping Act and the Navigable Waters Protection
Act.
In short, and I want to reassure my hon. colleague,
absolutely no final decision has been made with regard to the divestiture of
Transport Canada harbour bottoms.
* * *
Employment
Insurance
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, on May 31, I put the following question to
the Minister of Human Resources Development:
Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of
Human Resources Development received a copy of the additional report on the
employment insurance program tabled by the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development. |
Last November, the Liberal government
admitted that the program was too rigid and required changes. |
Is the minister going to give serious
consideration to the recommendations contained in this report, and will she
commit to making significant changes to the employment insurance program, to at
last correct the errors of the past? |
I am talking about the errors of the past because they
hurt people. It is beyond me that we have an employment insurance plan
subsidized by workers when the government has accumulated a $40 billion surplus
in the EI fund. Workers and newcomers on the labour market are discriminated
against because they have to work 910 hours before qualifying for
benefits.
Today, with all the layoffs we hear about across the
country, people who work in seasonal industries will not be able to qualify for
EI. It is most unfortunate.
On behalf of Canadian workers, I sincerely hope that
the federal Minister of Human Resources Development will carefully examine the
report tabled in parliament by hon. members from all parties, Liberals, members
from the Alliance, the Bloc and the New Democratic Party, as well as
Conservatives. They unanimously asked the minister to bring in amendments that
would be effective immediately, amendments that are needed.
For example it is recommended to go from 910 hours
worked to 700 hours. I do not necessarily agree with this recommendation but
this is what is recommended, and I am satisfied with that. It makes more sense
because more people would qualify.
The minister already recognized that even 700 hours was
too long for parental leave; she reduced that to 600 hours.
In regions like ours, and our region is not the only
one, the situation is the same all over the country, there are seasonal jobs.
It is not because of the workers. The situation is controlled by employers and
local economy. These people can no longer qualify for EI.
We can say that 85% of those who should qualify for
employment insurance do so. However, that is not the problem here. The problem
is that nobody has access to the employment insurance program any more. We are
not talking about people who are no longer eligible; we are not talking about
people who worked for eight, ten or even fifteen or twenty weeks, for example
in the tourism industry. We are not talking about these people who no longer
qualify for EI.
Given the number of layoffs announced, it is high time
the minister proposed a plan to change the employment insurance program for the
good of all workers in our country. I am sure they would be pleased and they
would greatly appreciate such a gesture on the part of the minister, if ever
she or the federal government decided to make those changes.
(1845)
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague opposite that
the government and the minister in particular are in the process of drafting
their response to the recommendations of the House standing committee that
looked at the EI issue. We will respond to the committee report within the
timeframe prescribed by the act.
I can assure my colleague and all members of the House
that this concern about a certain clientele that is not covered under the
employment insurance plan is shared by government members as well.
That is why, over the last few years, we made changes
to the plan to ensure that it meets the needs of Canadians and is better
adapted to the changing labour market.
[English]
Most recently under Bill C-2, the bill on employment
insurance which the House passed, we eliminated the intensity rule because it
did not improve workforce attachment. We adjusted the clawback provision which
no longer applies to Canadians who seek temporary income support for the first
time or those who receive special benefits.
Under Bill C-2 parents coming back to work after taking
care of young children qualify for regular EI benefits with the same number of
hours required of other workers.
[Translation]
Each year we assess the impact of the plan on Canadians
across the country. We will continue to ensure that it is well adapted to the
changing labour market and to the needs of Canadians. Our plan is flexible and
it meets the needs of Canada's labour force.
* * *
Shipbuilding
Mr. Antoine Dubé
(Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in this debate on the adjournment motion I
would like to talk about a matter I have raised in this House and the answer
given to it last Thursday. I asked the following question to the Minister of
Industry:
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the
Minister of Industry told Davie Industries officials that he could not do
anything to help their company until the proposals made to the government are
accepted. |
I was referring to an action plan that the minister had
prepared and tabled in June.
Could the government pledge to
quickly adopt the proposals of the Minister of Industry regarding the
shipbuilding industry, so as to avoid the closure of another company and, more
importantly, the loss of jobs? |
The parliamentary secretary is the one who answered,
and I see that he has been asked to answer again today. I will let him give his
answer, but what he was saying was that the Minister of Industry had met with
the officials but agreed with the decision made by Investissement Québec to
reject Davie's request. He therefore said that he agreed and answered that the
federal government would not do anything.
I would like to point out that shipbuilding, under the
constitution as it stands, is first and foremost a federal responsibility.
People from Davie Industries approached Investissement Québec because they were
fed up with nothing happening on the federal side. Yet, the Minister of
Industry did present a plan of action in June, the week after the House
rose.
Week in and week out, day in and day out, we are told
that soon there will be announcements of funding. Meanwhile, not only in Lévis
but elsewhere in Canada shipyards are closing. We are losing a whole
infrastructure that was important to us.
Today I hope the government and the parliamentary
secretary, who has former shipyard workers living in his riding and who long
chaired his regional caucus and is aware of the situation, given that the
matter is up for discussion at Treasury Board and in cabinet in the coming
weeks, will seize the opportunity I am offering them today to announce that the
government will do something to help Davie Industries.
I warn him that I will not be very happy if he says, as
usual, that they can do nothing for shipbuilding.
(1850)
Mr. Claude Drouin (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me this
opportunity to talk about government assistance to Davie Industries.
The government sympathizes with the workers and the
management of Davie Industries, whose future is uncertain.
Numerous factors are at the root of the difficulties of
that industry, including a lack of investment and innovation, and also foreign
trade practices.
It is in light of these difficulties that the
government took some measures to implement a new shipbuilding policy. In
October 2000, the Minister of Industry established a new partnership project on
shipbuilding. The project was co-chaired by officials representing the owners
and the union. The partnership held broad consultations across Canada and it
submitted its report to the minister in March.
In response to this report, the minister adopted a new
policy framework with over 20 realistic and affordable measures, including: a
new competitive financing mechanism for foreign and domestic buyers of Canadian
built vessels; improved export financing through the Export Development
Corporation; increased benefits for the Canadian industry from the development
of offshore oil and natural gas; access by the shipbuilding and industrial
marine industries to Technology Partnerships Canada for the development of
innovating technologies; and the creation of a new energy and marine branch at
Industry Canada for the effective implementation of the department's policy
framework.
We worked very hard to develop a shipbuilding and
marine industries policy that is competitive and efficient. We will help the
industry, including Davie Industries, to take advantage of all the
opportunities that it is entitled to under the new policy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have
been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.53 p.m.)