37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 065
CONTENTS
Friday, May 18, 2001
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1010
| KANESATAKE INTERIM LAND BASE GOVERNANCE ACT
|
| Bill S-24. Second reading
|
| Hon. Robert Nault |
| Mr. John Finlay |
1015
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1020
1025
1030
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1035
1040
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1045
1050
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADIAN POLICE WEEK
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Mr. James Rajotte |
1100
| CYSTIC FIBROSIS MONTH
|
| Mr. Tony Tirabassi |
| DES ACTION AWARENESS WEEK
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| INTERNATIONAL MUSEUMS DAY
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| NUCLEAR WEAPONS
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1105
| NUNAVUT SIVUNIKSAVUT
|
| Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Larry Spencer |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1110
| ENERGY
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| COUNCIL FOR CANADIAN UNITY
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| ÉCOLE JEANNE-SAUVÉ
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1115
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1120
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1125
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| ENERGY
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| CENSUS RECORDS
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1130
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Mr. John Finlay |
1135
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Mr. John Finlay |
| BUDGET SURPLUSES
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1140
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| EDUCATION
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1145
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CIDA
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Jean-Yves Roy |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Jean-Yves Roy |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
1150
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. David Anderson |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. David Anderson |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
1155
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| Hon. John Manley |
| FORESTRY INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| BANKING
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1200
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-7—Notice of Time Allocation
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1205
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Supreme Court of Canada
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| Poison Control
|
| Mr. Larry Spencer |
| Pesticide Control
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| Missile Defence Program
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1210
| KANESATAKE INTERIM LAND BASE GOVERNANCE ACT
|
| Bill S-24. Second reading
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1215
1220
1225
| NUCLEAR FUEL WASTE ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Second reading
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1230
1235
1240
1245
1250
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1255
1300
1305
1310
1315
1320
1325
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1330
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1335
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Motion No. 219
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Motion
|
| Bill C-222
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Motion
|
| INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION
|
| Motion
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1340
1345
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1350
1355
| Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 065
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, May 18, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1010
[English]
KANESATAKE INTERIM LAND BASE GOVERNANCE ACT
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved that Bill S-24, an act to implement
an agreement between the Mohawks of Kanesatake and Her Majesty in
right of Canada respecting governance of certain lands by the
Mohawks of Kanesatake and to amend an act in consequence, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. John Finlay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise to address the House on second reading of Bill
S-24, the Kanesatake interim land base governance act. I am
extremely pleased to be bringing this proposed legislation before
the House at this time.
As implementing legislation for the agreement with respect to
Kanesatake governance and the interim land base between Canada
and the Mohawks of Kanesatake, Bill S-24 is a key element of a
broader process aimed at resolving the outstanding grievances of
the Mohawks of Kanesatake and contributing to social harmony and
economic development for the communities of Kanesatake and Oka in
Quebec.
It has been more than a decade since the Oka crisis. A great
deal has been accomplished since that time but we can go no
further in our efforts to resolve outstanding grievances of the
Mohawks of Kanesatake without this agreement and its implementing
legislation.
It is time to recognize an interim land base for the Mohawks of
Kanesatake and to establish law making powers for Kanesatake that
other first nations have exercised for years.
In an effort to deal with Mohawk claims to the lands known as
the Seigneury of the Lake of Two Mountains, in 1925 the
Government of Canada began to purchase parcels of land for the
use and occupancy of the Mohawks of Kanesatake. Over the years
this has resulted in a patchwork land base so that today while
much of the Kanesatake land base consists of adjoining lands, at
least some Kanesatake Mohawk lands are interspersed with
non-Mohawk lands in and around the village of Oka.
The legal status of these federal crown lands has never been
resolved, which has resulted in uncertainty about the application
and enforcement of laws on Kanesatake Mohawk lands. This
uncertainty has seriously undermined the ability of the Mohawks
of Kanesatake to govern themselves.
Bill S-24 would eliminate this uncertainty by recognizing for
the first time an interim land base for the Mohawks of
Kanesatake. It provides that Kanesatake Mohawk lands would fall
under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, but not
under the Indian Act. Like many other first nations, the Mohawks
of Kanesatake want to extract themselves from the cumbersome
provisions of the Indian Act, not become further embroiled in
them.
Bill S-24 would ensure that the Mohawks of Kanesatake have
powers similar to the authorities exercised by other first
nations under the Indian Act. They would be empowered to adopt
and enforce land related laws in such areas as resource
management, land zoning, residency, waste management, the health
and quality of life of residents, construction and fire safety.
In the event of any conflict between Kanesatake laws and federal
laws, the federal laws would prevail.
1015
The bill provides that the exercise of Kanesatake powers would
be subject to the terms of a land governance code setting out the
principles by which the Mohawk council of Kanesatake would
operate. The code would ensure open and responsible governance
by the council, in the best interests of the community, with full
political and financial accountability.
Bill S-24 would also ensure that Kanesatake had the authority to
enforce its community laws. Kanesatake and Canada are already
working with the province of Quebec to conclude a separate
agreement on the administration of justice, after which
Kanesatake would have the authority to appoint justices of the
peace to adjudicate disputes over its laws.
To ensure that the Kanesatake Mohawk lands and non-Mohawk
properties in the village of Oka are subject to compatible legal
regimes, Bill S-24 would require a harmonization of Kanesatake
laws and Oka by-laws on neighbouring lands.
I am pleased to report that the municipality of Oka and its
mayor are supportive of the land governance agreement in Bill
S-24 and that relations between Oka and Kanesatake are greatly
improved. Representatives of these two communities are already
meeting to negotiate a harmonization agreement for their
respective lands in the village and to address other issues of
mutual concern.
I want to assure hon. members that the agreement to be
implemented by Bill S-24 is without prejudice to any aboriginal
or treaty rights of the Mohawks of Kanesatake, to Kanesatake's
historic grievance in relation to the Seigneury of the Lake of
Two Mountains or to further more far reaching agreements.
There is a turnaround under way in Kanesatake. Although many
issues remain to be resolved, people are optimistic about their
future. They are proud of the Kanesatake police force, which for
several years now has brought law and order to the community and
enhanced the security of all residents in Kanesatake territory,
in neighbouring Oka and their neighbouring municipalities. They
are proud of their nursing home for the elderly. They are proud
of the Mohawk immersion school and youth centre now under
construction.
Bill S-24 will lay the foundation for true stability in
Kanesatake, the kind of stability that is indispensable to real
economic growth and the sustainable nature of the community.
With this bill the Mohawks of Kanesatake and their neighbours in
the municipality of Oka can all look forward to greater economic
opportunity for the Kanesatake-Oka region.
Clearly we are on the right path. Bill S-24 is proof positive
that negotiation and reconciliation are the best options for
Canada, for the Mohawks of Kanesatake and for the non-Mohawk
residents in the region.
I would like to thank our colleagues in the other place for
their review and approval of Bill S-24. The hon. senators
recognize the merits of the of the land governance agreement that
would be implemented through this proposed legislation. They
have embraced the opportunity to contribute to the healing
process in the Kanesatake-Oka region.
I would like to recognize the co-operation we have had from all
parties in the House with respect to Bill S-24, and to urge hon.
members to complete this bill at the first opportunity.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today and speak to
Bill S-24, an act to implement an agreement between the Mohawks
of Kanesatake and Her Majesty in right of Canada respecting
governance of certain lands by the Mohawks of Kanesatake and to
amend an act in consequence.
Let me go on record today on behalf of the Canadian Alliance
that we will be supporting Bill S-24. However I have a number of
concerns that I wish to address both today and as this bill moves
through the committee stage.
The Mohawks of Kanesatake have been faced with a unique
situation. For those that are not familiar with the Kanesatake
Mohawk land claim, let me just take a moment to summarize.
Departmental officials have described it as “perhaps the most
difficult Indian claim which the Canadian government inherited
from pre-Confederation administrations”.
1020
The history of this unique situation goes all the way back to
the year 1717 and the French crown. More recently, in 1945 the
government attempted to resolve the land claim through a series
of land purchases. The lands purchased resulted in a patchwork
quilt effect of Mohawk and non-Mohawk lands scattered across the
Oka area. This chequerboard approach continued with land
purchases in the 1960s and the 1980s. Past attempts to deal with
the land claim through court actions have also been unsuccessful.
While I contend that the Indian Act is an archaic and
discriminatory piece of legislation that should be eliminated
over time, until now the Kanesatake Mohawks have not even had the
few benefits of this legislation, as their lands have not fallen
under the bylaw provisions of the act. Nor have they ever been
recognized under subsection 91(24) of the 1867 Constitution Act.
It is my understanding that this agreement will provide similar
powers as subsection 91(24) of the 1867 Constitution, but not as
a reserve as defined under the Indian Act.
I have several questions regarding some of the nuts and bolts of
the agreement. Some of the details concerning bylaw
harmonization between the municipality of Oka and the Kanesatake
Mohawks, environmental issues, the issue of willing buyer willing
seller on lands in the area and the voting process are just a few
of the issues that are far more appropriate to deal with at the
standing committee rather than during second reading in the House
of Commons.
There is a larger issue also at stake here today that I want to
bring to the House. That is the due process that the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development has used to bring the
bill before the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister has mused publicly about parliamentary reform
in the broadest terms possible. He has been chided by his own
colleagues and a past Liberal prime minister to let the MPs have
a voice in this Chamber. The government has been under pressure
to bring parliamentary reform into effect into the House of
Commons, and the actions surrounding this bill exemplify why it
needs to take place.
The Canadian Alliance has suggested a number of efforts to make
this Chamber more accountable to all the people of our
constituencies, not just those who voted for us. We have
suggested such revolutionary things as free votes, an ethics
counsellor who reports to parliament not just the Prime Minister,
secret ballots for the selection of committee chairs,
improvements to House of Commons debates and empowering MPs to
vote freely on behalf of their constituents.
Underlining all of these issues is the willingness of the
government to adhere and participate in an open and transparent
manner through the entire legislative process. Without that
willingness for change on the part of the government, all the
talk by the government amounts to so much empty rhetoric.
Unfortunately, over the years we have seen far too much empty
rhetoric from this government. The willingness to create change
must acknowledge that the status quo is not acceptable. It must
acknowledge that the old way of doing things cannot continue if
improvements and positive steps forward can be made.
Let me go a step further in this. Changes by the minister of
Indian affairs will affect the lives of many native people. I
believe that native people in this country need and deserve
change. The status quo is not working for our native people.
Yet without the creation of these changes in an open and
transparent manner, those involved will always have a suspicion
that there was a hidden agenda. Trust is earned, it is not
legislated.
For these reasons we must ensure that all of the right steps are
taken as we proceed through the bill. We must ensure that those
who are in favour of it fully understand it. We must ensure that
those who are opposed to it have the opportunity to voice their
concerns. We must ensure that those who are affected by the
changes in this bill, both native and non-native alike, are fully
apprised of it.
To some it would seem that these words are an attempt to slow
this legislation down. That really is not the case.
However in this case the minister has his procedural process
backward.
1025
We should all note that the bill introduced here today has
already been through the other place. The chamber of so-called
sober second thought has already called its witnesses and debated
the matter. The very nature of this process upsets me. How can
the other place have a sober second thought when the bill has
been through there first?
I believe the minister does not understand the correct process
of bringing legislation through the House. I note his comments
in the other place on April 25 when he said:
Without being too derogatory to my own colleagues in the House,
maybe things will go better if I send them here first. Perhaps
that is a good trend to continue. We will test it for a while.
We have other pieces of legislation that will be coming your way
in the next year that we may have some discussions about and
consider, with the approval of the House leadership.
Imagine, that is what he said that in the other place. I do not
think there was any consultation with our House leader on this.
It certainly did not receive the approval of the Canadian
Alliance to start in the Senate.
I am not upset over the work that the other place did on the
legislation. Indeed senators spent far more time in committee
than we will be allowed in the House. However to my knowledge
they did not call for the legislation to come to them first. It
was taken to them by the minister. I believe that was wrong.
What kind of hidden agenda did the minister have to start the
life of the legislation in the other place rather than the House
of Commons? Was it a make work project to keep our colleagues
there busy because the government's legislative agenda this
session is so thin that the wind could blow through it? It was
simply rehashed legislation from the last parliament, brought to
a halt when the Prime Minister called that unnecessary election
which cost the taxpayers of Canada millions of dollars and
settled very little.
The government also attempted to proceed through all three
readings of the bill today without even taking it to the Indian
affairs and northern development standing committee. This is an
insult to the role of the House of Commons and its duly elected
members. The minister should be ashamed of himself for
instituting this process.
I have to wonder aloud if this is the same level of transparency
and accountability that the minister is planning to employ
throughout the process of the first nations governance act he is
proposing. I agree there needs to be greater accountability on
the part of chiefs and councils to band members and that the
Indian Act needs to be dramatically altered and eventually
eliminated. I agree with a grassroots consultation process. We
are certainly the party in the House that exemplifies the
grassroots democracy of this country. We know all about this.
It is not easy to be grassroots, but it is democracy.
I believe there is a strong correlation between the pace at
which the minister is attempting to approve and implement Bill
S-24 and his proposed first nations governance act. Native
Canadians are not fooled by the minister's actions. They
believe, and I share their suspicions, that the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development is already well on its
way to drafting the text of the bill prior to the consultation
process even beginning.
However, today there are thousands of native Canadians who are
refusing to participate in the consultation process the minister
has proposed. The minister has proposed to do in mere months
what in all likelihood will take years to fully consult, draft,
debate and legislate, and so it should.
The minister has gone on record in his own riding that I, as a
member of parliament, fail to understand the consultation process
and that more than just the Internet will be used for feedback
for grassroots band members. I understand what I think he fails
to understand. While he may be talking about a meeting with
native leaders perhaps over the Internet, and yes they certainly
need to be consulted, I have been meeting and talking with the
people who are potentially affected by the bill that he proposes,
the native governance act.
The grassroots people who I have talked to are not sure how they
will pay their next telephone bill, let alone have access to a
computer and the knowledge of how to use e-mail or chat rooms.
Where are the priorities of the minister and the department?
1030
We are talking about thousands of people who do not have access
to potable drinking water. We are talking about people who do
not have adequate housing for many months of the year. We are
talking about people who cannot receive adequate health care.
There are many good examples across Canada. There are band
chiefs and councils who have their members' best interests at
heart and act upon them. However the House must wake up to the
harsh reality that thousands of native Canadians face daily. Yes,
they do want self-government but what does that really mean? If
we talk to 10 different people we will get 10 different answers.
They want to fulfil their right to self-determination. They want
decent education and health care for their families. They want
to control their own facilities. Why should they not? The rest
of us do.
If the minister were truly listening to the cries of band
members he would hear something else. He would hear that many
band members are scared of taking control of these services
before they are ready. Many band members wonder aloud how people
with a poor education can be in charge of their bands' education
authorities. They wonder how some of their leaders can lead them
into the 21st century when trust and accountability is lacking
today.
I have been talking with native Canadians from seven provinces
who are facing serious issues, such as third party management,
health care funding mismanagement, electoral and voting
discrepancies and education funding allocations. These are the
issues that band members, including elders, truly want addressed.
Rhetoric about consultation means little when children do not
have quality health care and houses have no running water.
Let us get our priorities straight for those who cannot
comprehend an end to the relentless barriers placed upon them.
I return to the specifics of Bill S-24. I have had the
opportunity to meet with grand chief James Gabriel and discuss
what the legislation means to Kanesatake Mohawks. I understand
why it is important to him and to many of his people. I have
assured him that the official opposition will not needlessly
oppose the bill.
However, and I am sure he understands, we need to ensure there
is not only due process but the appearance of due process. All
voices must be heard, both pro and con. At the end of the
process even opponents who do not agree with the outcome must
feel they have had an opportunity to express their opinion. The
end result of the process must be seen as a progressive move
forward by the majority who will be affected by the legislation.
I trust that the minister will seriously reconsider his words in
the other place and attempt to follow what I believe to be the
correct procedure. Perhaps the minister is wary of open and
honest debate in the House. He should not be. He should want to
ensure that all legislation that impacts on the lives of native
Canadians is viewed in the full light of this place by all hon.
members. We look forward in the coming days to discussing the
bill in committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, the purpose of Bill S-24, the Kanesatake
interim land base governance act, is to implement what might be
termed an historic agreement recognizing, for the first time, a
territory for the Mohawks of Kanesatake as well as the powers to
exercise jurisdiction over these lands.
This agreement is the outcome of long months of negotiation and
is evidence of the desire to create a peaceful and positive
atmosphere between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples
following on the disturbing events of 1990. Remedying this
situation has taken 11 years.
I think the wounds needed to heal somewhat first, and then there
had to be negotiations in good faith and by mutual consent
before the result we now have before us could be achieved.
The bill will make it possible to settle Mohawk property
rights, thereby reducing the economic uncertainty surrounding
the ownership and use of the area's lands and resources.
1035
The events of 1990 had a direct impact on property values, on
the future of these lands, what would happen to them, who would
own them and how they would be administered. I believe that Bill
S-24 will calm down the situation and show that investment in
this area is possible. People can now make informed decisions
about settling in this area, knowing exactly what the framework
will be.
It is important to point out that the word interim is used
precisely because there is the possibility of other lands being
added in future, with the consent of both parties.
In other words, there is an agreement, as should be the case
when negotiations occur, on issues on which both sides agree,
but additions may be made in the future. This is particularly
true if the agreement works well and yields good results,
because then some landowners or people who want to clarify a
situation may be tempted to join those who are already covered
by the agreement before us.
The Bloc Quebecois will support the bill. This position
reflects our party's openness to the comprehensive claims made
by aboriginal peoples. It is part of a constructive dialogue
with the first nations.
We have demonstrated this in recent years, since the Bloc
Quebecois has been present in this House, particularly during the
first few years, through the work of the hon. member for
Saint-Jean. He was in contact with first nations officials
everywhere. Things have not always been easy but we managed to
build a constructive relation. Whenever bills or measures have
been proposed to improve relations with one or several first
nations, we have worked in that spirit. Our support for the bill
before us today is based on that spirit.
It is important to understand the need for this harmonization
agreement. In order to do so, it must be realized that some
parts of the Kanesatake lands are not contiguous. In fact, 57
lands belonging to the Mohawks of Kanesatake are located in the
Town of Oka.
It is also important to stress the fact that the current
agreement was reached after consultations with the Quebec
government, which is not a party to this agreement.
These lands really come under federal jurisdiction and formally
involve only the federal government and the Mohawks of
Kanesatake, but the government of Quebec was consulted and
there was an agreement with the town of Oka, with the result
that this was a consensus of almost all those involved directly
or in an advisory capacity in the negotiations.
It should be emphasized that the agreement included a statement
to the effect that it had been concluded without prejudice to
any Mohawk rights, whether ancestral or treaty based, and without
prejudice to land claims involving the Seigneurie du lac des
Deux Montagnes.
An agreement was reached without there necessarily being a need
to work out all these sorts of issues.
Waiting to do so would probably have prevented an agreement
being reached and stood in the way of more harmonious relations,
which are needed in this sector.
All these issues are part of what is being negotiated between
the Government of Canada and Kanesatake. This is not a
comprehensive agreement on self-government, nor is it a treaty.
It is a unique agreement on the management of a certain number
of lands, taking into account the specific circumstances of
Kanesatake.
There was a debate and even a referendum in the community.
Interestingly, the result was very close: 239 voted in favour of
the agreement and 237 against. This result shows that it can be
useful to respect the rule of 50% plus one in a community. It
is just about the only rule that is really acceptable.
Grand chief James Gabriel said that the close result was
indicative of the energetic debate in the community, without
calling into question the legitimacy of the agreement. He said
“It is always healthy to have differing views. This is part of
what society is all about”. It is true that when people want
society to be democratic, they must accept differing views, and
that was the case in this process.
I find it interesting that with such a close result the
federal government is agreeing to pass a bill to implement this
agreement. I think this is an example the government would
do well to apply to other cases, such as that of Quebec.
1040
In this instance, in the case of the agreement before us, the
government of Quebec was consulted, as I said, and informed of
it. It gave its general support, as did the town of Oka. It
was therefore treated properly with respect to the agreement to
be signed with the Mohawks of Kanesatake.
An indepth analysis of the bill was also done. We support it.
We are proud to be able to play a small part in this historic
moment for the Mohawk nation of Kanesatake, which now will have
the tools it needs to grow.
Everyone wants the communities to have a chance to develop to
their fullest, to have the powers that will enable them to do
things and to be accountable.
We would have favoured swift passage for the bill. I listened
to the arguments by the Alliance member, who said that the bill
had to go through all the stages, including consideration in
committee. That to me indicates a lack of understanding of
native issues.
It is the same spirit we saw expressed in the context of the
Nisga'a agreement, obviously a much broader agreement, requiring
thorough consideration. However, in this instance, it was clear
from reading the document that we could pass the bill quickly,
in a single day.
We therefore cannot adopt the paternalistic attitude on this
that the Canadian Alliance has. It strikes us as a kind of
refusal to understand the reality of the aboriginal peoples and
of their particular culture.
In a broader context, I would like to point out to hon. members
that the Bloc Quebecois supports the recommendations of the
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. These called for an
approach based on the concept of self-government, which
acknowledges aboriginal governments as a level of government
with jurisdiction over questions concerning governance and the
welfare of their people.
The entire royal commission report was based on recognition of
the aboriginal peoples as an independent nation occupying a
unique place within Canada, and the Bloc Quebecois supports this
concept.
The agreement respecting Kanesatake governance fully reflects
the spirit of the conclusions and recommendations of the
Erasmus—Dussault report, and thus constitutes a positive step
toward a healthier redefinition of the relationship between
governments and aboriginal peoples.
Therefore it is of obvious importance that this bill be passed
in order to continue to ensure harmonious relations between the
various communities in the Kanesatake and Oka area. They have
had occasion to see what damage can be caused if agreement
cannot be reached by negotiation in such situations.
At least, it seems to me that conclusions have been reached,
that an agreement that must be respected has been reached, an
agreement that while approved by the Mohawk community by a very
slim majority, has nevertheless been accepted and is wanted by
the community.
In my opinion it is important that this bill be passed as
promptly as possible.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to join in the debate on Bill S-24 although I am
always critical of bills that originate in the other place. I
firmly believe that legislation should be presented by elected
officials rather than by unelected people sitting
undemocratically in the other place. It is therefore with
sadness that I enter the debate on a bill which I support and
would like to see passed but of whose origins I am critical.
Although we are dealing only with second reading today, there
was unanimous consent among House leaders to deal with all stages
of the bill in one day. The bill would afford basic rights to
the people of Kanesatake, something for which they have been
waiting for generations. It would therefore be fitting and
appropriate that the House of Commons co-operate for once and
deal with all stages of the bill to give the people of Kanesatake
what they have so patiently and peacefully waited for all these
years.
Let it be known that it is the Canadian Alliance, the party that
stands against any form of aboriginal self-government, that has
blocked this agreement. The Canadian Alliance is an obstacle to
the agreement and is denying the Kanesatake Mohawk people the
right to self-determination.
I am very critical of this stunt. Let it be known that it is
political mischief on the part of the Canadian Alliance. It is
another stunt to create an obstacle to the self-governance
aspirations of the Kanesatake Mohawk people.
1045
I wish to compliment Kanesatake Mohawk Grand Chief James Gabriel
and the Kanesatake council for the patience and perseverance they
have shown during peaceful negotiations to get to this point in
Canadian history. We can now renew the relationship with the
people of Kanesatake through a real governance instrument so that
they can move forward their aspirations with legal authority.
Bill S-24 fills a legal vacuum because the Kanesatake are not
covered by the Indian Act. They never have been because early on
they saw the shortcomings in the Indian Act and to their credit
said that they did not want any part of it. The fiscal and legal
relationships between the Kanesatake Mohawks and the federal
government have always been vague.
Even though they implemented their own rules and regulations
they had very little legal authority to enforce them. It came to
light recently when they wanted to stop people from dumping
garbage on their land. They tried to intervene by pointing out
that it was against their bylaws and local council laws. They
found that they had no right to stop the dumping of toxic waste
on their property. That should illustrate the depth of the
problem better than anything else. Somehow that had to be fixed.
On December 21, 2000, the Government of Canada negotiated with
the Kanesatake to create the Kanesatake interim land base
governance agreement. Bill S-24 would ratify the agreement and
would ensure that certain lands constitute lands reserved for the
Kanesatake Mohawk within the meaning of the Indian Act but not
covered by the Indian Act.
The Kanesatake would still not be in the same relationship as
other first nations on reserves. It would be an independent,
free standing and unique arrangement that would serve the people
of the community very well. It would serve as a model and would
prove that the Government of Canada could negotiate individual
agreements with first nations. We do not need a cookie cutter or
boiler plate approach to impose things on people.
Kanesatake is a Mohawk community of approximately 2,000 members
situated on the Lake of Two Mountains about 50 miles northwest of
Montreal. A number of lots that make up Kanesatake Mohawk lands
are situated within the boundaries of the village of Oka. Mohawk
land is actually intermingled with land owned by non-Mohawks. It
is not a traditional aboriginal community at all. It is unique
in that way.
Kanesatake has never been an Indian reserve. They have always
rejected the model of the Indian Act. Even with this new
relationship the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development would not have the right to veto and would not be
vested with the same authority as he is under the Indian Act. In
that way the Kanesatake Mohawk would retain independence even
though the new relationship with the federal government would be
defined.
The unique land status means that the elected Mohawk band
council which has never been recognized or had law making powers
would now have that authority. Bill S-24 is the enabling
legislation that would grant real law making authority to the
band council. They were always self-governing. They had rules
and regulations by agreement but, as I pointed out with the
garbage dumping issue, they never had the legal weight and
authority to be able to enforce the rules and regulations.
The bill would cover a number of details. The Kanesatake
Mohawks would have jurisdiction to make laws in relation to the
use and development of the lands of the Kanesatake Mohawk interim
land base including a relationship to the health and quality of
life of residents.
The bill would also provide for the protection and management of
wildlife and fish, which is a major issue; the observance of law
and order; the prevention of disorderly conduct and nuisances, in
other words self-policing with legal authority; and the
prevention of trespass including entry on to or occupation of the
lands without lawful authority, which is control of their own
boundaries.
1050
They would be allowed to pass laws due to residency. Fire
safety and fire protection services would be independent agencies
unto themselves through the band council. The construction,
maintenance, management and use of local works including water
supplies are very significant issues. They would have control
and governance over their own water supplies, which is a huge
issue across the country and especially in first nations
communities lately.
Zoning would be under the authority of the band council, along
with waste management, public sanitation and even traffic
regulation. They would be able to govern traffic issues
throughout their reserve. They are not worried about basic
traffic issues but about the type of traffic that goes through
their land. For example, they may not want trucks full of toxic
waste going through their land. They would be able to regulate
those matters.
It is with a great sense of pride and optimism that I speak on
behalf of the New Democratic Party in favour of Bill S-24. It is
the culmination of many years of hard work. It is the graphic
representation of the new approach and the new attitude that
progressive Canadians have toward our aboriginal brothers and
sisters.
All parties, except for the Canadian Alliance, seem to welcome
that new relationship. There is sort of a Eurocentric bias on
behalf of the Canadian Alliance. It would like to maintain the
old status quo and the old paternalistic relationship between
government and aboriginal people. Our party rejects that
paternalistic relationship. The Canadian Alliance wants to cling
to it.
This has been a terrible frustration for me as a member of
parliament trying to defend these issues and trying to promote
these concepts. We suffered through the Nisga'a debate which
should have been the feel good debate of the decade in the House
of Commons when we finally dealt with a 130 year old dispute and
signed the first treaty of the century.
Instead it turned into the most divisive debate in the House of
Commons because members of the Reform Party, the Canadian
Alliance today, moved 472 amendments. They lost every one of
them. They did not move those amendments to improve the bill.
They moved those amendments out of pure political mischief to try
to bury a human rights issue.
It is the kind of party that would put human rights to a
majority vote. Members of the Canadian Alliance are always
talking about how there has to be a referendum. They say that we
have to let the whole country vote on it. I say that we do not
put minority rights to a majority vote. When will they get that
through their heads? It was embarrassing for me to hear
Canadians stand in the House of Commons with that type of
approach toward the Nisga'a people.
I am proud to say that I have a T-shirt given to me by the
Nisga'a people that says “Nisga'a 472, Reform Party 0”. That
made me feel a lot better.
Bill S-24 is the realization of a dream. It is evidence of a
maturing relationship between the Government of Canada and
aboriginal people. It is the very fitting and rightful
representation of the progress made as aboriginal people take
their first courageous steps toward true self-governance within
the legal framework of Canada. They have always had
self-governance. They have the inherent right to be
self-governing and they were doing it for thousands of years
before the Europeans ever got here.
Now there is a formal relationship within the legal framework of
Canada where they can actually make changes to their day to day
lives. They can regulate and enforce. They have the power of
law with the expressed co-operation of the Government of Canada
in this new relationship.
I wish to illustrate from a legal point of view the vacuum this
group of people were in. There was a well known case on the
Kanesatake Reserve involving Jean-Roch Simon.
1055
Due to a lack of clarity as to the legal status of the
Kanesatake Mohawk people, it has never been clear which laws up
until now, federal, provincial, Kanesatake or municipal, apply to
the lands.
In March 1987 Jean-Roch Simon, a member of the Kanesatake
Mohawks, began building a multi-unit residential building in the
village of Oka on Kanesatake Mohawk lands. Mr. Simon received a
construction loan from the Government of Canada. He proceeded to
erect the building on the premise that he would be exempt from
municipal land use bylaws because the lands in question were
federal crown lands under section 91 of the Constitution Act.
This is where it gets complicated. In April 1987 the
municipality of Oka commenced litigation seeking an order to
cease the construction and to demolish the building on the
grounds that it was in violation of municipal zoning and
construction bylaws.
It is hard to imagine, but this brings an abstract concept into
a very graphic illustration where we are dealing with real
dollars, as well as a loss of opportunity and a loss of income on
this person's part. The building was torn down because of the
confusion as to who had the right to grant municipal permits to
build on that property.
In August 1993 the case went all the way to the Superior Court
of Quebec. It ruled in favour of the municipality and ordered
the building to be demolished. The court made no determination
as to whether the lands came within the meaning of section 91 of
the Constitution Act. It found that the lands did not constitute
federal public property. This again illustrates what a confusing
legal morass the Kanesatake Mohawk people were forced to deal
with all these years. As this document says, they were in a
legal vacuum.
That is why we should be celebrating Bill S-24 and why I am
incredibly critical of the Canadian Alliance for being an
obstacle and a barrier to moving the issue forward. There is not
another political party in the House of Commons that would stand
in the way of basic human rights for aboriginal people except for
Alliance members who over and over again deliberately,
specifically and expressly do all they can to interfere with
people's basic right to self-governance.
I would like to go over some of the background history in a
little more detail because it is instructive that we are all made
aware for future purposes how this kind of relationship has
evolved. Bill S-24 and the agreement that stems from it could
serve as a model in terms of future fiscal and legal
relationships between the federal government and other aboriginal
communities.
The Kanesatake Mohawk land claim has been viewed by experts as
perhaps the most difficult Indian claim the Canadian government
has ever inherited, even from pre-Confederation administrations,
which is when this issue actually started. The unique
circumstances of the Kanesatake Mohawks with respect to their
land base can be traced back to 1717 and a seigneurial grant of
land.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
CANADIAN POLICE WEEK
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to mention to the House that this is Canadian Police Week.
The aim of this initiative is to inform the community about
police services. The police are using it to strengthen their
ties with the community.
Police week is the fruit of efforts by a number of parties,
including the Government of Canada and the provincial attorneys
general.
Throughout the week, activities have been organized to make the
public aware of the role of the police in our communities.
Our police officers are devoted, courageous and vigilant. The
police in the riding of Shefford have certainly always been so.
Let us take this moment to acknowledge that it is thanks to the
work they do that we live in security, and they bring this home
every day.
* * *
[English]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the attorney general of Ontario came to Parliament
Hill today to call on the Liberal government to put justice into
the youth criminal justice act.
1100
Through three red books and eight years in power the Liberal
government has done little to improve the Young Offenders Act
despite the outcry of Canadians. With the youth criminal justice
act the Liberals have presented Canadians with an old car with a
new paint job. There is little new in the act and little that
brings justice to the system.
Like so many other provinces, as well as victims rights
organizations and concerned citizens, Ontario called for stronger
provisions to ensure that young offenders who commit adult crimes
serve adult time and that there is mandatory jail time for
weapons offences.
These are common sense solutions that regrettably the government
has too little time for. For the sake of Canadians and for the
sake of victims of crime, I urge the government to bring real
justice to the youth criminal justice act.
* * *
CYSTIC FIBROSIS MONTH
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to inform members of the House and all Canadians that
May is Cystic Fibrosis Month. Cystic fibrosis is a genetic
disease affecting primarily the respiratory and digestive
systems. As of yet there is no known cure for cystic fibrosis.
Approximately one in 25 Canadians carries the gene which causes
cystic fibrosis. Approximately one in every 2,500 children born
in Canada has the disease. Cystic fibrosis is one of the most
deadly inherited diseases affecting Canadian children and young
adults. The Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation supports
clinical services for persons with cystic fibrosis and supports
scientific research to find a cure or control for the condition.
I ask the House to join me in congratulating members of the
Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation for their achievements and
extending best wishes for a very successful Cystic Fibrosis
Month.
* * *
DES ACTION AWARENESS WEEK
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House and all Canadians
that May 14 to May 18 has been designated DES Action Awareness
Week to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the landmark article
by Dr. Herbst linking the use of DES in pregnancy to cancer in
daughters later in life.
DES is a synthetic oestrogen that was prescribed to women
between 1941 and 1971 to prevent miscarriage and encourage a
healthy pregnancy. It did not work. Instead it caused serious
health problems for them, their children and their children's
children.
During the 30 year period that DES was used more than half a
million Canadians were affected. Third generation effects are
now becoming evident in the grandchildren of those who were
prescribed this hormone.
DES Action Canada's goal is to identify all DES exposed persons
and to inform them and health professionals of the tragic
consequences of DES exposure. Congratulations to DES Action
Canada for its excellent work.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL MUSEUMS DAY
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on May 18,
the entire world celebrates International Museums Day.
In 2001, the theme “Museums: Building Communities” underlines
the importance of the social role of the museum and recalls the
definition of the museum as “a permanent institution in the
service of society and of its development”.
In Canada, over 2,000 museums enable us to discover our
country's and the world's heritage, in the arts, sciences,
history, technology and nature.
These museums reflect all that we are and have been. They
reflect our identity, culture, ideas, beliefs, both past and
present.
In this International Year of Volunteers, we also recognize the
exceptional contribution made by the 55,000 or so volunteers,
who generously give of their time and make museums a source of
pride and inspiration to all Canadians.
* * *
[English]
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, our southern neighbours have asked Canada's blessing in
exchange for generously extending its future missile shield over
us. What surprises me is that the government is dragging its
feet instead of standing tall with our ally.
Nuclear missile technology is 50 years old and will not go away.
In fact every few years a new country is admitted to the nuclear
arms club. The ABM treaty, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, is
30 years old and the People's Republic of China has never signed
it. As more and more states develop nuclear capability the
chances of accidental misfires dramatically increases.
It is time for the government to acknowledge that threats in the
world are coming from different countries than in the past. It
is time to acknowledge that to be ready for the different world
of 20 years from now we must start planning and building today.
It is time for the government to stop dragging its feet and
commit itself to missile defence.
* * *
1105
NUNAVUT SIVUNIKSAVUT
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on Wednesday evening I was privileged to attend the 16th
graduation ceremony of students from Nunavut Sivuniksavut.
The Nunavut Sivuniksavut program is a great success story. This
year long program provides Nunavut youth with a variety of skills
which serve them well as they go on to further post-secondary
education and important roles in Nunavut. The knowledge acquired
at Nunavut Sivuniksavut includes the history of Nunavut, the land
claims agreement, and the role people play in this important
process.
The pride with which the students perform traditional songs,
drum dances, games and throat singing is very encouraging to see.
It makes these youth excellent ambassadors for Nunavut.
Congratulations to the students of Nunavut Sivuniksavut. The
future is theirs. Good luck to all graduates.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, contributors to the employment
insurance program—that is employers and employees—and the
unemployed got clear evidence that the Minister of Finance
wilfully accumulated, at their expense, an amount of $7 billion
to help pay off Canada's debt. Seven billion dollars.
This means that $500 were taken annually from the pockets of
taxpayers, even though they could really have used that money to
make ends meet.
The employment insurance program was used for a reason other
than its primary purpose, which is to ensure a decent income to
a worker who is temporarily out of work. The government turned
the program into a regressive tax on payroll which deprives the
poor and the middle class from an income that is theirs.
We all agree that we must reduce Canada's debt. However, the
means used by the Minister of Finance is unworthy of someone who
aspires to become Prime Minister.
When people look at their paycheque, they should remember that
the refusal of the Minister of Finance to hold a transparent
debate on the management of the surpluses means that their
contributions to the employment insurance program are in fact an
unfair tax on the reimbursement of the debt.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
military leaders of Burma are acknowledged to be among the
world's cruellest violators of human rights. The junta has
tortured and executed political opponents, exploited forced
labour, denied fundamental freedoms of expression, assembly
association and movement, and condoned the growing traffic in
heroin and amphetamines.
Several months ago there was hopeful speculation that the
pervasive repression would be eased; that the country's
courageous pro-democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, would be
liberated from house arrest; that her party, the National League
for Democracy which won more than three-quarters of the seats in
the 1990 election, would be permitted to resume its activity; and
that political prisoners would be released. That hope now
appears to be a mirage.
Aung San Suu Kyi remains under house arrest. Some 1,700
political prisoners, many of whom are students and including 35
people elected to parliament in 1990, remain in detention. The
repression of the National League for Democracy has even
intensified.
What is needed now and what is still missing is an
internationally co-ordinated and coherent political and economic
strategy in which Canada can play—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I believe all parliamentarians should
applaud yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court of Canada
upholding freedom of conscience and freedom of religion for all
Canadians.
It would indeed be a tragedy for Canada to prevent its citizens
from adopting and maintaining a personal code of conduct that
does not infringe upon the rights of any other Canadian. If a
government agency, without any evidence of wrongdoing or
misbehaviour, can start questioning people's convictions, who
will be targeted tomorrow?
The Supreme Court of Canada decision upholds the right of
Trinity Western University to maintain a code of conduct based
upon religious values. This decision should be welcomed by all
who value pluralism, true tolerance and religious freedom.
The proper place to draw the line is generally between belief
and conduct. The freedom to hold beliefs is broader than the
freedom to act on them. I certainly applaud the supreme court
for yesterday's decision.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
next Wednesday in Stockholm, Canada will sign and will likely be
the first to ratify the United Nations convention on persistent
organic pollutants, also known as POPs.
The Stockholm convention will dramatically reduce or eliminate
emissions of 12 toxic substances known as the dirty dozen. Canada
played a central role in the development of this treaty. It has
succeeded because of the tireless work of individuals like our
own John Buccini, formerly with Environment Canada, who chaired
the international negotiations.
I would also like to recognize the leadership of Sheila
Watt-Cloutier of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference in heading a
coalition of northern indigenous peoples and bringing their
plight into the heart of the negotiations.
1110
Canada was also the first country to commit specific funding,
$20 million, to aid developing countries in building their
capacity to deal with POPs. I congratulate Canada for signing
the Stockholm convention.
* * *
ENERGY
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, most
Canadians are reeling with shock over spiralling, out of control
energy costs. Even if NAFTA has rendered the federal government
impotent to do anything about the supply side, it should be more
concerned with dealing with the issue from the demand side.
A unit of energy harvested from the existing system is
indistinguishable from one generated at a generating station
except for a number of significant things. First, it is
available at about one-third of the cost. Second, it creates
about seven times the number of person years of employment.
Third, it is available and on line immediately for resale to
somebody else. Fourth, it reduces harmful greenhouse gas
emissions.
The federal government owns 68,000 buildings across the country,
most of which are absolute energy hogs because they were built at
a time when energy was not an issue.
I am saying that the federal government should undertake a
comprehensive energy retrofitting program to rehabilitate and
renovate every one of those 68,000 buildings as an example to the
private sector of what can be done. We could be known as a
centre of excellence for demand side—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Verchères—Les-Patriotes.
* * *
[Translation]
COUNCIL FOR CANADIAN UNITY
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this week, parliamentarians were invited to attend a reception
organized in honour of the Council for Canadian Unity.
Bloc Quebecois members declined the invitation and for good
reason, since we condemn the fact that, since 1995, the federal
government has spent over half a billion dollars provided by
taxpayers on propaganda and often partisan activities.
Just as unacceptable is the fact that the council was not held
accountable to the public for the some $35 million in taxpayers'
money that it received during the same period.
Worse still, just before the end of the last financial year, the
government hurriedly increased the budget of the Canada
Information Office by close to $80 million over a three year
period, an annual increase of close to 135%.
This is why we declined to attend. The Bloc Quebecois cannot
condone the fact that $500 million in taxpayers' money was used
to fund propaganda activities, when sectors as critical as
education, health and regional development, to name but a few,
need a significant increase in the federal government's
transfers to the provinces.
* * *
ÉCOLE JEANNE-SAUVÉ
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week I attended the launch of the environmental microbusiness
“La société de demain, j'y travaille” at the Jeanne-Sauvé public
elementary school in Orléans.
This is the first initiative of its kind in Ontario and it came
about through the support of the Conseil des écoles publiques de
l'Est de l'Ontario and a grant from Alcan.
The microbusiness's activities are now an integral part of the
lives of the school's 575 students from kindergarten to grade
eight.
The students are required to collect and recycle aluminum cans
and grocery bags. They also recycle paper to make greeting
cards for sale in the community.
Each class is a shareholder and it is up to the students how
they reinvest the profits from the sale of their products.
Jeanne-Sauvé public elementary school is an example to all
schools.
* * *
[English]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, earlier
this year a joint industry-labour task force released its long
awaited study of the shipbuilding industry in Canada. Proponents
of the study have labelled the report a made in Canada solution
and anxiously await signs that their minister, with the political
will, will champion the cause in caucus.
With the summer break for parliament rapidly approaching,
coastal regions on both ends of our nation are disappointed that
they may have to wait until fall to actually receive a response.
In addition, the industry minister made his inaugural cause,
when he springboarded back into politics just prior to the
federal election this past November, that he as a Newfoundlander
with salt water in his veins would deliver for coastal
communities from coast to coast.
With the summer break approaching we still have not heard.
Canadians cannot afford the delay any longer. It is time that we
delivered an incentive based, non-subsidy driven shipbuilding
policy. We call on the Minister of Industry to step up to the
plate and do this right away. Canadians in coastal communities
from coast to coast cannot wait any longer.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week team Canada Atlantic participated in the first ever trade
mission to Atlanta, Georgia. Atlantic Canadian companies have
joined the Prime Minister, provincial premiers and federal
ministers in meetings with business leaders in the southern
United States.
The purpose of the mission is to explore the market potential
for Atlantic Canada's products and services in the region. In
1999 Canadian exports to the region exceeded $22 billion.
For every $1 billion in trade there are 10,000 jobs being
created.
1115
On behalf of my colleagues, I pay tribute to our Prime Minister
who has opened more doors for Canadian trade than any other prime
minister in the history of Canada. I congratulate team Canada.
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, there is a transportation infrastructure crisis in
eastern Ontario, and particularly in the high growth areas in the
western part of the new city of Ottawa.
Due to the explosion in gasoline prices the federal government
has enjoyed billions of dollars in new revenues in Ontario alone
from its petroleum excise tax. Yet this year it will be giving
only $681 million to Ontario for all infrastructure and only a
portion of that will wind up being used for roads.
In last week's provincial budget the Ontario government promised
$70 million for infrastructure development in the new city of
Ottawa with particular emphasis on adding new lanes to the
Queensway from the Highway No. 7 interchange through to Nepean.
If it goes forward this expansion will provide the relief that is
needed to sustain local growth.
However federal assistance is needed as well. Will the federal
government, flush with cash from its unbudgeted windfall in tax
revenues on gasoline, match the Ontario government and show that
it cares about the economic growth of Lanark county, West
Carleton and Kanata?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Translation]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Finance promised to hold inflation
between 1% and 3%. Today, we hear that inflation is at a
nine-year high of 3.6%.
How does the minister think he can reassure Canadians with
forecasts that are not even good for 24 hours?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, very
clearly, we must always be vigilant with respect to inflation,
but the figure the member is referring to is known as the
headline rate. The one and two spread has to do with what is
known as the core rate. Yesterday's figure was 2.1%.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Like I
said, Mr. Speaker, not a good record. It did not even last 24
hours.
One of the big drivers of inflation has been energy costs such
as home heating fuel. Just before the last election the minister
arranged for a rebate program so that individuals could get some
relief from that. Sadly, many of the people who received those
rebates were convicts in jail.
How is it that convicts in jail ended up with a lot of the
relief rather than senior citizens who really deserved that
relief?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is simply not true. Some 99% of Canadians who
received the home heating rebate were Canadians who deserved it.
There is no doubt, as we have stated, that there were anomalies
in the whole situation, the same anomalies that the Alberta
government found when it made its rebates.
I would simply point out that there are 11 million Canadians who
received the home heating rebate.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, one thing the finance minister said is that when these
massive tax cuts wend their way through the system, everything
will be fine.
A recent poll, however, found that 76% of Canadians have not
noticed any drop on their paycheques. The finance minister's own
focus test group came up with exactly the same conclusion.
Why is it that Canadians cannot see that tax reduction on their
paycheques if those tax reductions are so massive?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, those tax reductions are 21% on average. That is truly
significant. For a family of four with an income of $60,000, it
is 18%. A single mother or a single father raising a family and
earning a salary of $25,000, he or she will now receive a child
benefit of over $2,500. That is significant amount of money
going toward helping Canadian families and we are proud of it.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the bank needs to reduce interest rates to stimulate our economy
but it needs to increase interest rates to fight inflation and to
save our sinking dollar.
How will the finance minister solve this dilemma?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that the agreement between the government
and the Bank of Canada at 1% to 3%, mid point 2%, the trend rate,
which is the most important rate, not in any single month but the
trend rate over a series of months, is the core rate and that
core rate is at 2.1%.
1120
As to the basic question, I would simply point out to the hon.
member that under our system the Bank of Canada is independent.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this issue is very important to seniors. An inflation
rate of 2% means that the value of a dollar goes down to about 82
cents in 10 years. The 3.6% rate, which is the rate the seniors
are interested in and the actual rate, not the fudged one that
the bank uses, means their dollar goes down to about 70 cents in
10 years.
This inflation is a hidden thief of savings and purchasing power
for everyone and it is hard on seniors. What does he propose—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt about the pernicious effects of
inflation. That is why the government signed a five year
agreement. It has enabled us to control inflation in the
country.
The fact is that as a result of the actions of the government
and the Bank of Canada we are now considered around the world as
a low inflation country and we are going to stay that way.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the president of the United States announced an ambitious energy
plan to make extensive use of fossil energy, including fossil
fuels from Canada.
This plan is already generating a great deal of controversy at
the international level, since it goes against all the efforts
made in recent decades to protect the environment and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Could the Prime Minister tell us how Canada intends to react to
the Bush plan and whether the position presented this morning by
the Minister of the Environment, who said that he disagrees with
the direction taken by the United States, is the government's
official position?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as we review the plans announced by President Bush, we
will be looking, first, for balance between the supply side and
the demand side of the equation. We will be looking for virtues
like energy efficiency and energy conservation. We will be
looking for diversification among our energy sources, including
renewables, alternative fuels and new innovations like fuel
cells.
We will be looking, in particular, for the principles of
sustainable development which are the guiding principles of
Canadian policy.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Europe
strongly condemns the Bush plan and the reaction of the
president of the European Union, Mr. Larsson, reflects the
unhealthy climate generated by the announcement of that policy.
He said “the discussion between friends no longer exists”.
Given the minister's evasive answers, is the government telling
us that it will support the White House in its totally
irresponsible approach, which is incompatible with climate
change problems ?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously the plan announced by President Bush is a
domestic plan for the United States of America.
Within Canada, we will be insisting that insofar as that plan
affects us that we will expect respect for Canadian needs and
priorities, respect for our sovereignty, respect for our
regulatory processes, respect for the sustainable development
principles and the security of the environment that are
fundamental to Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, President Bush's
energy plan even includes oil drilling in the Great Lakes, which
is liable to cause significant damage to the St. Lawrence.
Could the minister say clearly today whether Canada intends to
oppose such a project?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the plans of the United States with respect to further
drilling programs are not particularly clear at this point.
I would make this fundamental point. Insofar as those plans
impact upon Canadians and Canada, we will insist that all the
environmental rules and regulations of our country are fully
applied and fully respected according to the law.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is not a
question of insisting but rather of demanding.
Canada, minus Quebec, has the world's worst record for carbon
dioxide emissions per capita. What is more, Ontario and the
northeastern United States produce sulphur emissions that end up
falling as acid rain on Quebec, damaging our forests and lakes.
Is the minister aware that the Bush plan, with its coal fueled
generating plants, will undermine all the years of effort
Quebecers have been putting into acid rain reduction?
1125
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have indicated that we disagree with the United
States position with respect to climate change. The Americans
have indicated that they do not intend to implement the Kyoto
protocol. From the Canadian point of view, we remain committed
to the objectives in the Kyoto protocol. We have already
invested $1.1 billion toward that end and that will take us
one-third of the way toward our goal.
From our point of view, climate change is a serious global issue
and it will be treated seriously by the Government of Canada and
by all Canadians.
* * *
ENERGY
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the same minister, who appears to
be still beating around the bush. My question involves
yesterday's announcement by the president about U.S. energy
policy, one which will demand more and more energy exports from
Canada and tighter U.S. control over energy supplies and our
prices. Today, because of NAFTA, as the minister knows, we have
very little control over security, supply and pricing.
Would the minister make a commitment that before Canada enters
into any new export agreements with the United States for energy,
we negotiate new terms under which Canada will be able to control
its own energy supply and its own commitment to completing the
Kyoto agreements?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously we will put the needs and priorities of
Canadians first. That is the fundamental obligation of the
Government of Canada and it will be honoured by the government.
With respect to climate change, we have already indicated that
we intend to fulfil our obligations under the Kyoto protocol. We
have made substantial investments to that end already. I am
pleased with the degree of engagement that we are now achieving
from the provinces. From Canada's point of view, the Kyoto
obligations are critical. We intend to make sure that Canada
abides by the undertakings that we have made.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, as everyone knows, the oil companies are making huge
profits and paying less in taxes, thanks to the Minister of
Finance, and Canadians are now paying California prices at the
pumps. We are being gouged at the pumps.
Would the minister tell us what the government will do to make
sure Canadians control their own price at the pumps and that they
are not being gouged by big oil in this country and big oil in
the United States of America?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the largest factor driving consumer oil prices at the
present time is the international price of crude, over which
Canadians have very little control. The influence of OPEC is
obviously a very serious factor.
To the extent that action can be taken within Canada, we have
indicated the kind of action that is already on the books in
terms of the home heating fuel rebate of last winter. The
Minister of Finance has indicated that he is prepared to revisit
the tax question if the provinces are willing to come to the
table and participate.
* * *
CENSUS RECORDS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday a class action suit was filed against the
crown claiming that the long form of the census violates a
person's right to privacy and discriminates against 20% of the
population.
Statistics Canada has told complainants they would be taped and
possibly jailed or fined for not co-operating. The long form of
the census requires sensitive information, including mental
infirmity, sexual orientation, mortgage payments and family time
be filed.
How does the government justify this collection of detailed and
intimate information? And, who guarantees the security of this
big brother privacy intrusion?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the form of the census is established and carried out by
Statistics Canada which operates to some degree at arm's length
from the government. It is a highly respected agency that has a
firstclass record of protecting the privacy of its information
and I am sure that will continue.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this is not very reassuring.
Given the class action filed in Quebec, can the government
inform this House as to whether legal opinions were sought on
the content of these questions before they were made public?
What assurance can the government give us that these questions
are not in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure that the privacy legislation will be respected and we will
act according to the law. If there are questions about the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the courts will be the
ones to settle them.
* * *
1130
[English]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the attorney general of Ontario held a press conference
this morning on the youth criminal justice act. Ontario is just
one more opponent to what has been almost universally described
as ineffective and inefficient legislation.
This mess will be dropped into the laps of the provinces that
must administer it. Why did the government not listen to the
provinces? Why is it merely going through the motions of
attempting to con Canadians into believing that something is
being done to improve the youth justice system?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat interesting
that my colleague, the attorney general of Ontario, came to
Ottawa this morning and indicated some concerns with our youth
criminal justice legislation when his officials had the
opportunity to appear before committee but, as I understand it,
refused to take that opportunity.
Let me say that we believe our new youth justice legislation is
premised upon the values of Canadians and premised upon three
important considerations. They are: prevention, meaningful
consequences when crime occurs, and rehabilitation and
reintegration into society.
Over there they say it is too tough and over there they say it
is too soft—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey North.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the attorney general described the legislation as being
onerous, time consuming and filled with roadblocks to the
successful treatment of young offenders. Others have also
complained of the complexity.
I proposed numerous amendments to simplify and reduce the delays
in the process, but they were not accepted. The government has
had at least six years to improve the youth justice system.
Little has changed other than the rhetoric and the name of the
legislation. Why?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is untrue. In fact, as
the hon. member knows, we listened very carefully to the many
dozens and dozens of witnesses that the committee heard. The
government brought forward some 182 amendments to our youth
criminal justice legislation.
I certainly take exception to the hon. member's comment about
the legislation being unduly complex and onerous. We have done
everything to streamline the legislation. Again I can only say
that the legislation strikes the right balance in terms of youth
criminal justice and reflects the values of most Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the
subject of interventions with young offenders, Quebec and Canada
take different approaches. For Quebec, it is a matter of
rehabilitation, for Canada, repression.
The former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice
Dickson, said that parliament could legitimately tolerate
differences among the provinces, which reflect distinct and
rational values and political sensitivities.
Will the Minister of Justice agree that she can satisfy Ontario
and Quebec by letting Quebec go ahead and opt out?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said on numerous
occasions in the House, our youth justice legislation is
sufficiently flexible to permit the province of Quebec to
continue the things that it is doing.
Therefore I think the legislation reflects the general comments
made by the former chief justice of Canada, Brian Dickson.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
light of the remarks by Mr. Justice Dickson, who said that there
is nothing to prevent the minister from allowing Quebec to opt
out, we put the challenge to her today.
Is the minister prepared to allow Quebec to opt out? We will
then see in five years whether Quebec or Canada has the better
record in juvenile crime? Will she rise to the challenge?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the former chief justice of
Canada, Brian Dickson, did not comment about any province having
the right to opt out. What Brian Dickson was talking about was
that within the context of uniform federal legislation in
relation to youth justice, provinces could apply that legislation
flexibly.
As I have said before in the House, we have worked very hard to
ensure that the provinces have flexibility in the application of
the new youth justice legislation.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in a leaked cabinet document dated February 15, 2001,
and entitled “Consultation Strategy for First Nations
Governance”, it is clear that the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development wants to bring in legislation to the House
by the fall of this year.
If this is true and if the bill is not already drafted, does the
minister think that a few months over the summer are sufficient
to consult with thousands of native people on this very important
matter?
Mr. John Finlay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is misinformed. He is dealing with one statement that
this would happen over the summer as if that was the end of it.
This will take two and a half years. We will consult with the
chiefs. We will consult with people on reserves. We will
consult with the people involved in the difficulties of
management among our first nations.
1135
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that he will consult with
native people through the use of the Internet and chat rooms.
When I talked to native people they said that they would rather
have adequate plumbing in their houses than be plugged into the
Internet. Maybe the solicitor general and the minister of Indian
affairs ought to get together on this.
When will the minister get his priorities straight and ensure
that native people across Canada have the essential tools to live
healthy and productive lives?
Mr. John Finlay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is exactly what the effort at governance is to do.
The Indian Act encroaches upon normal operations of reserves, of
the chiefs and of the administrators, the people elected to do
the work. What we need to do is give them more responsibility
and more range so they may make the decisions that are best for
them with respect to economic development, education and so on.
With some co-operation, we look forward to advancing the whole
business of governance.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUSES
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Finance confirmed that this year's
surplus of over $15 billion wildly exceeds his forecasts, as
usual.
The member for Markham, formerly a Royal Bank economist, said
yesterday, on television, “The Minister of Finance introduced
errors so that the surpluses would be larger than forecast for
political reasons”.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that his behaviour is
unacceptable and anti-democratic and that hiding the real
surpluses, year after year, as he has done for four years now,
prevents a real debate on the public's priorities?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first,
the member is well aware that he is quoting the member for
Markham out of context and that this sort of approach does
nothing to help matters.
Concerning the fundamental issue, we are absolutely prepared to
debate priorities. There are two or three days set aside each
year for a debate here in the House on the government's options.
The member sits on the Standing Committee on Finance. He is
certainly entitled to ask committee members to hold such a
debate and, as I said yesterday, I would be prepared to attend.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
these circumstances, why is the minister refusing to grant me
two requests I made yesterday?
The first was to submit all his forecasts of revenue, spending
and surpluses to a committee which is independent of the
Minister of Finance and his little banking friends. The second
was to allow a real parliamentary debate on the use of his
surpluses, not just on their size but on their use, before he
brought down his budget.
We certainly think that it is important to pay down the debt,
but the public has other priorities, such as health and
education.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member has all the tools at his disposal, but the problem is
that he does not wish to use them.
First, we have the debate on the estimates, which the member can
use. Second, there is a debate here in the House before each
budget. It may be that the member does not take part, but we do
indeed have a procedure in place. Third, there are always
opposition days.
All the member has to do is use the means at his disposal.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, an official DND report states:
The Sea King helicopter is over 30 years old and has received no
significant update in capability. It is operationally and
materially obsolete. The age and stage of the avionics of the
aircraft cause it to be exorbitantly expensive to maintain and
also cause it to be operationally irrelevant when it does fly.
When are the Sea Kings going to be replaced?
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is
committed to the acquisition of 28 new maritime helicopters
through a competitive process that is fair, open and transparent.
Ultimately, when we spend Canadian taxpayer dollars on large
projects such as this, it is the government's responsibility to
decide the best procurement strategy for Canadian taxpayers, and
that is what we are doing.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, again we get vague and evasive
answers.
This same official report states that helicopter delivery will
not be completed for another 10 years. Yes, another 10 years.
This official report gives the date of July 2011. A 25 year
procurement nightmare will continue until Canada Day 2011.
If the assistant chief of defence staff knows when the
helicopters are coming, why does the minister not know?
1140
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are committed.
When we announced our procurement strategy last fall we indicated
that we hoped the first helicopter would be delivered in 2005. We
stand behind that statement.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
recent weeks intensive representations have been made by
Elizabeth May on behalf of people living near the Sydney tar
ponds.
The Minister of Health has promptly and persistently acted upon
her representations. Would the Minister of Health inform the
House about the latest development resulting from his efforts to
protect the health of families living near the Sydney tar ponds?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
later today the Minister of the Environment and I will be issuing
a statement to draw attention to a proposal we have put to the
government of Nova Scotia, our partner in the JAG process.
The proposal has four elements: first, that there be soil
testing and analysis on the residential properties and blood
analysis and hair analysis of the residents of those properties;
second, that we have chronic health risk assessments commenced
now; third, that there be meetings with the residents affected at
which JAG and other people will provide plans and counselling;
and, fourth—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
holding in my hand a job posting for what seems like a really
great job in the federal public service at the customs and
revenue agency for $52,000 a year. The only problem is that
under the heading of who can apply it states that only persons
residing within a 60 kilometre radius of Ottawa.
What if my son or daughter from Winnipeg were qualified and
wanted to apply for that job or some kid in Halifax, Edmonton or
Vancouver? Why does it matter where one lives if one is
qualified for the job and willing to move?
Will the government commit to stopping this unfair hiring
practice and giving every Canadian equal opportunity and access
to those good public service jobs?
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the geographic
determination of the public service is something that has been
there since 1992 and actually even before that. It allows the
public service to reduce its cost in processing applications.
I think there is a general sense that it may no longer be
applicable. I understand that the Public Service Commission is
now investigating it and studying it. Hopefully the member could
refer his concerns to Mr. Serson, who is the head of that
commission.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, earlier
this year farmers were told that the government's pockets were
not as deep and that was why they could not get the kind of
funding they so desperately needed to compete with international
subsidies.
Yesterday's announcement of at least a $15 billion surplus puts
the lie to that particular argument. Given the size of the
surplus and the fact that it is one-third larger than was
predicted by the finance minister last fall, will he now commit
to helping out those desperate farmers today?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when one looks at the surplus at the end of the year one
must recognize that it is simply part of what was the total
surplus. The vast majority of it was spent through the course of
the year on agricultural matters, environmental matters, research
and development, health care and a vast range of other things.
The only thing that happens at the end of the year is the year
end accounting when the final number in terms of debt is
understood.
In terms of the importance of Canadian farmers to our way of
life and to our economy, there is no doubt the support of the
government, the support of the minister of agriculture, the
support of—
The Deputy Speaker: The member for St. John's West.
* * *
EDUCATION
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Minister of Finance. With an aging
population and greater health care demands, a smaller portion of
CHST funding is going toward post-secondary education. Labs and
buildings are deteriorating. Class sizes are doubling and in
many cases tripling. Tuition fees and associated costs are
becoming unmanageable.
In light of all his positive announcements, when will the
minister address this glaring deficiency?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us understand that in terms of transfers to the
provinces not only is the CHST at an all time high but
equalization is also at an all time high.
Specifically in terms of education the 1998 budget a knowledge
budget. If we take a look at the help for the research chairs,
if we take a look at the investments that have gone into basic
post-secondary education, and if we take a look at the help the
government has provided to the vast range of educational
institutions, we see that the federal government understands its
role and its responsibilities and is in the process of exercising
them. There is no doubt about the importance of education to the
future economy.
1145
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister knows as well as I do that a lot of that funding is not
going where it is really needed, to help the young people.
Will the minister show leadership by convening a meeting with
his provincial and territorial counterparts, as well as affected
aboriginal nations, to address post-secondary concerns? This way
the problem can be addressed and we can ensure investment in our
most valuable resource, our youth, not only for their good but
for the good of the country.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have certainly on a number of occasions in the past
met with the Council of Ministers of Education, and one time with
the current Minister of Canadian Heritage when she was in a
previous post. Within the last year I also met with the current
president of the Council of Ministers of Education. I am
certainly prepared to continue in that vein.
* * *
CIDA
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, CIDA is helping to fund the Chalillo
dam project in Belize with taxpayer money.
Consultants to Fortis, the Canadian company pursuing it, have
said that the project will have major negative and long term
effects and that the benefits from the dam will be significantly
lower than the costs because it will destroy critical habitat in
the country.
Why has the minister responsible for international development
seen fit to support such a destructive project?
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is a
very good one. Unfortunately, the member is out to lunch.
[English]
CIDA is providing funding toward the preparation of
environmental and social assessments and for public consultation
only. We are not contributing to the construction of any dam.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is a Canadian company that has a
monopoly on the project in Belize. The project will fracture a
critical area of biodiversity that stretches from Mexico to
Panama.
Why does the government not take responsibility, deal with the
company and block this environmental catastrophe?
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if there is an environmental problem we will present our report
to the country of Belize so it can make a judicious decision as
to whether it should or should not go ahead with the project.
* * *
[Translation]
FISHERIES
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
stakeholders in Quebec's fishing industry unanimously recommend
an additional quota of 6,000 tonnes of shrimp for Quebec.
The
request is based on principles of fairness and on the respect of
historical quotas granted to Quebec fishers.
Does the minister of fisheries intend to reply favourably to
Quebec's repeated request and give it the additional 6,000
tonnes for which it is rightfully asking?
[English]
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I will be
announcing the northern shrimp plan very soon. It is a resource
for which we have increased the harvesting by 300% in five years.
It is very important to make sure that conservation is our
priority. There is always a huge demand. In fact there is a
demand to increase the 112,000 metric tonnes by 50,000 metric
tonnes.
I have met with many of the people and the minister. I will
make sure that the decision I make will protect the resource for
future generations. That will be the priority.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec, the Fédération
des pêcheurs semi-hauturiers du Québec, and the Association
québécoise de l'industrie de la pêche are unanimous in their
request.
Will the minister once again, as is his government's habit,
reject out of hand another consensus in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of those requests. I met with
many of the people who made them. I will look at those in the
same context as all other demands.
Making decisions on allocation is of course always very
difficult. That is why we have set up a panel to look at how we
can have transparency in the decision. The Quebec minister and
all the ministers of Atlantic Canada have agreed to the panel so
that they can review and make sure we make the allocation
decision fairly and equitably for all Canadians.
* * *
1150
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Sklarzyk family has been ordered out of Canada mere
weeks after the immigration department became aware of the
situation. Yet a man wanted for political assassination in the
Philippines has been allowed to stay in Canada for administrative
reasons.
What message does the minister believe this sends about Canada
when our system deports hard-working, law-abiding people and does
nothing about assassins?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, our system does not deport
permanent law-abiding residents citizens. We just do not deport
people as he has described them, and his description is
outrageous. I would also say to the member that there is a
quasi-judicial independent procedure in the country that affords
due process to individuals.
At committee over the past weeks, members of his party have
supported due process. I thought that was their party policy.
Today I hear they are not supporting—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond.
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, what is outrageous is the non-answer that is coming from
the minister of immigration.
Regardless of what has been said there is no rhyme nor reason
coming from the decisions made within the immigration system. The
system is clearly broken.
When will the minister of immigration undertake real reform of
the system which will ensure that legitimate individuals are
allowed in and criminals and assassins are denied entry?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the
plug he just gave to Bill C-11. I would like to thank the
committee members for all their work. I understand the bill will
be reported to the House next week.
I look forward to support from that caucus for a piece of
legislation that would close the back door to those who would
criminally abuse both the immigration and refugee determination
system, open the front door wider to those who respect our laws
and help us build our country in the tradition of immigration to
Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Transport or his parliamentary secretary.
The Government of Quebec recently announced construction work on
highway 50, in western Quebec. Does the Government of Canada
intend to get financially involved in this project?
[English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, even though highways are a
provincial responsibility, the federal government has committed
$600 million as part of the infrastructure investment with the
provinces and territories.
That said, in the case of Autoroute 50, the province of Quebec
chose not to include this highway in its negotiations for the
national highway system. Autoroute 50 remains a provincial
highway and is not part of the NHS.
This is a good time to remind the House that the federal
government had participated in Autoroute 50 over the years to the
tune of $100 million over the last 30 years. I appreciate the
member's question today.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board has repeatedly told the House that the wheat
board has a program that will allow organic farmers to market
their own grain. He is wrong. Clearly he does not understand
the issue. The board's organic policy only lends farmers the
money to buy back their own grain from the government.
Organic farmers have rejected this absurd idea, yet the minister
continues to personally support it. Why does the Canadian Wheat
Board minister choose to stifle western rural diversification and
development?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again let me say that the power and authority of
the Canadian Wheat Board is vested in the hands of its board of
directors. The board of directors consists of 15 people, 10 of
whom are duly elected by farmers themselves.
The hon. gentleman talks about freedom and choice. What is
wrong with democratic elections among farmers who choose their
own directors to make their own decisions?
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the organic farmers are not part of
that group. They are not represented by it.
The minister should reread his title. He is the minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. He is responsible for
the Canadian Wheat Board Act. He is responsible for its glaring
failures.
Arnold Schmidt wants to sell the organic flour he mills from his
own grain. If he farmed in Ontario he would have no problem
doing that. Because he lives in Saskatchewan the wheat board
minister has decided he cannot export his own product.
How can the minister support this unequal and unfair policy that
is penalizing development in western Canada?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that when wheat or barley are exported from
Canada, wherever in Canada they come from, they require the
appropriate export permits.
1155
In the case of Mr. Schmidt and others, their concerns have been
drawn to the attention of the Canadian Wheat Board. It seems to
me that decisions respecting the operations of the board are
better made in the hands of farmers than by politicians in the
House of Commons, on this side or on that side.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
there have been grave concerns about the health of Haroun
M'Barek for some days now.
In deporting him to Tunisia, the Canadian government has
committed a serious mistake. It must now assume the
responsibility of doing everything possible to quickly reach a
solution to this human tragedy.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs inform us of the approach he
plans to take to the Tunisian authorities in order for Mr.
M'Barek to finally gain access to the health care required by
his condition?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to make representations to the
Tunisian government on behalf of Mr. M'Barek. This is a serious
situation and we have indicated our interest in it.
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
over the past 10 years there has been terrible conflict in Sierra
Leone. At least two dozen individuals have been identified for
potential prosecution for war crimes in the region.
Could the foreign affairs minister tell us what Canada's
position is with respect to the special court that is being set
up by the United Nations in Sierra Leone.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada continues to be very concerned
by what is happening in Sierra Leone. We are particularly
concerned that those who are responsible for many crimes and
atrocities be held accountable for their actions.
However the details with respect to the organization and budget
for the special court for Sierra Leone are still not finalized.
The Canadian government will consider those in determining
whether to make a financial contribution at the appropriate time.
I should also advise the hon. member that the member for
Nepean—Carleton is currently on his way to west Africa in order
to investigate the situation there, and to report back to me.
* * *
FORESTRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my office I hosted a
briefing on the mountain pine beetle infestation in British
Columbia which has already killed 5.7 million hectares of working
forest, an area twice the size of Vancouver Island and a number
that is expected to quadruple this year. If left unchecked this
epidemic has the potential to destroy the economy of north
central British Columbia.
Will the Prime Minister agree to meet with the new premier of
British Columbia and commit to providing a share of the resources
necessary to combat this epidemic?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Natural Resources Canada already conducts a considerable
amount of research that is used by western provinces in the
management and control of the mountain pine beetle.
Obviously the hon. member has identified a serious pest problem
in our core sector and I am certainly anxious to pursue every
reasonable means by which the Government of Canada could help our
forest sector find a solution.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the task force on shipbuilding tabled its report in late March,
yet we are still waiting on any indication from the Minister of
Industry of his intentions in connection with this vital
generator of employment and regional development tool.
Now that the Minister of Finance has announced his $19 billion
surplus, is the Minister of Industry prepared to ask his
colleague to release the necessary funds for a true shipbuilding
policy?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member has raised an important matter. We are currently
reviewing the report and will have a response from the Minister
of Industry in due course. I repeat, this is a very important
matter.
* * *
[English]
BANKING
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, news reports indicate that the Government of Canada
is considering setting up yet another federal bank to help
service the needs of small and medium sized businesses in
exporting to developing countries.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance give
the House assurances that there will be safeguards put in place
and built into any enabling legislation to prevent political
interference in lending decisions so we can prevent the debacles
that we saw with the Prime Minister and the BDC?
1200
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's
question about the debacles and so on.
We have a certain number of federal lending institutions
operating at arm's length from the government. They have
accomplished an excellent record in serving the public interest,
including the business community and the workers of Canada.
If there is any new institution of the kind that is suggested by
the hon. member, I am sure it will meet all the necessary
criteria and standards to keep up the excellent record achieved
by other similar institutions.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
in his response to a question from the member for Palliser, the
Minister of Finance said something to the effect that money being
allocated for agricultural aid was not real money but merely a
journal entry. I think that was what I heard him say.
My question has to do with the money being applied to the debt.
Is that real money or is that too just a journal entry?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am having a little bit of difficulty with the hon.
member's question. I want to be as general as I can.
The fact is that the money going to the farmers is real money
because we understand the needs of Canadian farmers. We
understand the need to protect the Canadian farm family. We also
understand the terrible competition arising from the disloyal
subsidization in France and in the United States. I can tell the
House that the Canadian government has demonstrated time and time
again, and the minister of agriculture has demonstrated time and
time again, that they will—
The Deputy Speaker: This brings to a conclusion today's
question period. The Chair does not have a surplus of time.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
BILL C-7—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached
under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) and (2) with
respect to the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill
C-7, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and
to amend and repeal other acts.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that
a minister of the crown will propose, at the next sitting of the
House, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for
the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages
of the bill.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Obviously, we have heard the notice of motion that has just been
given by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services,
but I would simply like to draw to your attention and that of
the House that the reasons behind the minister's notice of
motion seem completely unfounded to me.
He was indeed unable to reach an agreement under the standing
orders but we could have reached an agreement on the bill
itself, which might have sped things up.
The Deputy Speaker: With all due respect to the hon. member,
this is not a point of order but rather matter for debate.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to you as the
Speaker to perhaps hesitate to accept this motion from the
minister until such time as there has been time for adequate
debate in the House.
1205
The Deputy Speaker: Let me just add to the debate. This
is a notice of motion, not a motion at this point. Certainly
everything that has been on the floor of the House is consistent
with our rules and practices notwithstanding that there may not
be total agreement. That is why we are here to debate.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the
table the report on plans and priorities for 2001-02 of the House
of Commons administration.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 16
petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to
present to the House, in both official languages, the report of
the Canadian delegation to the Political Affairs Committee of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, held March 12
and 13 in Paris, and to the meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe Standing Committee, held on March 14 in
Paris.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 20th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of
reference from the House of Commons of Tuesday, February 27,
2001, in relation to the main estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002, in regard to vote 20, under Privy Council,
Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. The committee reports the
same.
* * *
PETITIONS
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, certain constituents in my riding have requested that
the Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning the sentencing of
Robert Latimer be upheld and that parliament not intervene to
alter this decision. I would put this on the table.
I would also add, while I am on my feet, that I agree with the
constituents very strongly in this regard.
The Deputy Speaker: I just want to remind colleagues that
we ought not to either add or delete from whatever petitions we
table.
POISON CONTROL
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege today
to present this petition signed by 380 of the fine residents of
Saskatchewan who have a rural problem.
They are asking for amendment of the relevant regulations so as
to permit the sale of concentrated liquid strychnine to
registered farmers until such time as an effective alternative
can be found.
PESTICIDE CONTROL
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions, both of which are signed mostly by my residents in
Mount Royal. The first petition calls upon parliament to enact
an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical
pesticides until such time as their use has been scientifically
proven to be safe and the long term consequences of their
application are known.
MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition, again signed by many residents of my
constituency, seeks to draw the attention of the House to the
following: that the Government of Canada may be asked to support
the U.S. national missile defence, NMD, program to be operated by
the North American aerospace defence command; that NMD is a
unilateral initiative of the United States which plans, as it
states in this petition, to dominate space by integrating space
forces into war fighting capability; that NMD would be a step
toward the deployment of weapons in space and lead to a new arms
race; and that it would violate the 1972 anti-ballistic missile
treaty and run counter to Canada's commitment as a signatory to
the non-proliferation treaty to promote complete nuclear
disarmament.
These treaties are the cornerstones of the international
non-proliferation arms control and disarmament regimes long
supported by Canada. Therefore the petitioners call upon
parliament to declare that Canada objects to the national missile
defence program of the United States and ask that Canada play a
leadership role in banning nuclear weapons and missile flight
tests.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1210
[English]
KANESATAKE INTERIM LAND BASE GOVERNANCE ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-24, an
act to implement an agreement between the Mohawks of Kanesatake
and Her Majesty in right of Canada respecting governance of
certain lands by the Mohawks of Kanesatake and to amend an act in
consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to take up where I left off prior to question period. I
will use the few minutes I have left to summarize some of the
points I was seeking to make earlier in the day.
First I want to restate my very heartfelt congratulations to the
grand chief of the Kanesatake Mohawk people and the band council
for the years of hard work that have gone into negotiating this
historic settlement. It is not often that we as parliamentarians
have an opportunity to take part in something that is so wholly
necessary and that in fact makes history.
We are making history here today as we help the Kanesatake
Mohawk carve out a new relationship with the federal government.
They are casting off or clearing up many of the shortcomings of
the former fiscal and legal relationship with the federal
government and entering into a whole new era.
Earlier I started to go through some of the long drawn out
history of the Kanesatake land claim. I was saying prior to
question period that it goes back to 1717. I will not take hon.
members through the whole long and ragged history of
pre-Confederation negotiations. Suffice it to say that this is
the culmination of 200 or 300 years of a maturing relationship.
Both parties should be complimented for the hard work they have
done and for the fact that they have managed to undertake this by
peaceful means through negotiation and not through any outbursts
or violence or road blockades.
I would raise a cautionary note, though, so as not to sound like
I am simply a booster for the federal government in this regard.
I raise the cautionary note that these new relationships we are
entering into with aboriginal communities as they strive to
achieve self-government, which we fully endorse, are only as good
as the resources they receive. The relationships will stand only
if they are followed by implementation.
We have examples. I raise this as a criticism of the federal
government. There are examples such as Naskapi Cree people of
northern Quebec, who do have a unique individual self-government
relationship. They have been complaining for years that ever
since they finally got their own details hashed out, the
implementation has been so painfully slow, shabby and wholly
inadequate that there have been years of frustration.
Even though we are pleased to see the legislative framework put
in place today, this whole feeling of goodwill could collapse if
the federal government does not deliver all the resources
necessary to fully implement the act we are voting on today.
I will use the remaining minute or two I have to restate again
how disappointed I am that the House of Commons could not have
dealt with this all in one day. After 300 years of tedious,
frustrating negotiations we had the opportunity to bring this to
its final conclusion today. Unfortunately the Canadian Alliance
blocked the unanimous consent needed to go through all stages of
reading the bill and voting on the bill in one day.
Let the record show that all parties in the House of Commons,
except the Canadian Alliance, wish to see the speedy passage of
the bill and the independence and the true self-governance of the
Kanesatake Mohawk people.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
too am very pleased to rise today to put our position forward and
on the record on Bill S-24, the Kanesatake interim land base
governance act.
I will start by echoing the comments of the member for Winnipeg
Centre. A couple of days ago it was understood that we would be
able to bring forward this piece of legislation, give it all
readings and go to committee, come back to report stage and have
this piece of legislation implemented fairly quickly. Certainly
we in our party suggested at that time that it was a very
important piece of legislation which should be able to go through
the House unmolested.
1215
I am very disappointed that we do not have that opportunity
today and that the Alliance Party had, for whatever reason, a
desire to impede the bill.
The bill, being an S bill, has had public hearings in the
Senate. There are detractors and those who wish to put forward
their concerns and difficulties with the bill. It has gone
through that process. Unfortunately, for some reason the
legislation is being held up by the Alliance Party. I am truly
disappointed.
It is very good legislation. It deals with native
self-governance, an issue that has been in the House for quite
some time.
I will give a bit of background although I will not go back
hundreds of years as did the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. The
Mohawks of Kanesatake, a place most of us know as Oka, live on a
tract of land approximately 50 kilometres west of Montreal. The
land has been set aside for the Mohawks but does not constitute a
reserve. Its inhabitants include aboriginal and non-aboriginal
peoples.
In 1990 unresolved aboriginal land claims erupted into the Oka
crisis which we all recognize as one of the darker days in the
history of this great country. Land claims disputes came to a
crescendo in the Oka crisis, a crisis that, in my opinion, was not
necessary.
The Mohawks erected barricades to block roads. At the request
of the Quebec government, Ottawa sent Canadian forces into the
area to resolve the confrontation and the ensuing conflict. As
we all know, one Quebec police officer gave his life.
Over the past 10 years the Mohawks of Kanesatake have worked
with the Government of Canada to resolve questions and grievances
regarding land use.
In March of 1991, Kanesatake Mohawks and the federal government
agreed on an agenda for negotiations.
In 1994 a memorandum of understanding over land purchases was
signed between the Mohawks and the federal government.
In 1997 the Mohawks established their own police station and the
federal government made land purchases in the name of Kanesatake.
On December 21, 2000, a new land governance agreement was signed
between Kanesatake and the federal government.
Bill S-24 represents the culmination of 10 years of
negotiations. It did not happen overnight. It was achieved
through negotiations with the band, the Mohawk people and the
federal government. The process began in 1991 and is finally, in
2001, coming to fruition in the House.
Bill S-24 would provide legal recognition of a land base for the
Mohawks of Kanesatake. It would provide powers of law making,
policing and other services by implementing the agreement with
respect to Kanesatake governance of the interim land base.
Bill S-24 would ensure that lands in the Mohawk interim land
base are reserved for Indians pursuant to the constitution but
not as reserves under the Indian Act.
Bill S-24 would also provide a framework for the exercise of
jurisdiction and would establish principles for the harmonious
use and development of Mohawk lands. That is very important.
Under the legislation, the Mohawks of Kanesatake would have the
legal capacity to acquire and hold property, enter into
contracts, borrow, expend and invest money, and be a party to
legal proceedings. These rights do not exist on reserve lands
under the present Indian Act.
Bill S-24 would give Kanesatake Mohawks the ability to govern
themselves as opposed to being forced to govern on the basis of
the Indian Act.
The Mohawks of Kanesatake would also have the power to make laws
formerly made at the municipal, provincial and federal levels.
Subclause 7(1) of Bill S-24 states:
The Mohawks of Kanesatake have jurisdiction to make laws in
relation to the use and development of the lands in the
Kanesatake Mohawk interim land base, including in relation to
(a) the health and quality of life of residents;
(b) the protection and management of wildlife and fish;
(c) the observance of law and order and the prevention
of disorderly conduct and nuisances;
(d) the prevention of trespass, including entry onto,
or occupation of, the lands without lawful authority;
(e) residency;
(f) fire safety and fire protection services;
(g) the construction, maintenance, management and use of
local works, including water supplies;
(h) the construction or alteration of buildings, including
inspection in connection with the construction or alteration;
(i) zoning;
(j) waste management and public sanitation; and
(k) traffic regulation.
1220
That list speaks to the abilities of a municipality. A
municipality has the right to set laws with respect to fire and
police protection, water, waste management and traffic
regulations. Such bylaws are set by all municipalities. Bill
S-24 would give Kanesatake Mohawks the right to make those rules
and regulations for themselves and for their people. That is
absolutely necessary if we are to achieve self-governance for
Indian people.
While violators of those laws would be liable to punishment by
the Mohawk of Kanesatake, fines or imprisonment could not exceed
the limits established in subsection 787(1) of the criminal code.
Kanesatake Mohawks could make laws but they could not exceed what
is in the criminal code provincially or federally.
Subclause 8(1) of the bill specifies that Kanesatake Mohawks
would not be governed by the Indian Act. That is a new way of
governing. We should take the blinders off and see that it is
the wave of the future. It is where we should be heading not
only with this act and this band but with other bands across the
country.
Before the Kanesatake Mohawks could enact the legal powers
accorded to them by Bill S-24 they would need to adopt a land
governance code that set out the law of the land. The code would
establish rule of law, land use rules, conflict of interest
rules, rights of appeal and redress, and procedures to amend the
code. Again those same rules and criteria are necessary for the
municipal level.
A land use plan must precede any commercial or industrial
activity such as disposal of waste, storage or transportation of
hazardous materials. A land use plan is important when planning
a community. Kanesatake Mohawks must embrace a land use plan if
they are to develop their lands.
Bill S-24 stipulates that Mohawk of Kanesatake law must be
consistent with federal environmental protection standards and
can exceed provincial environmental standards. This means that
while Kanesatake would have rights over fisheries and hunting it
would still need to comply with the Environmental Protection
Standards Act and the guidelines set out by the provinces.
Bill S-24 would establish the process by which Kanesatake land
use rules could be harmonized with the land laws of the
municipality of Oka. That is an onerous task. The area
inhabited by the Mohawk comprises many small land parcels which
are occupied by aboriginal and non-aboriginal residents.
Bill S-24 addresses the issue of governance. It does not debate
first nations treaty rights or other outstanding disputes and
grievances. It does not deal with land claims.
The bill would, as I have said, allow reserves and bands
throughout the country to look at different models of
self-governance and adopt the one which suits them. The band, in
this case the Mohawk of Kanesatake, could then provide its people
the services they need. If its form of self-governance is
successful it could serve as a model for other bands throughout
the country. Perhaps Bill S-24 will take us out of the 18th
century and into the 21st century when it comes to dealing with
aboriginal rights.
I am happy to put the position of the Progressive Conservative
Party on the table. We support Bill S-24. We are disappointed
it could not go forward right away. As I have pointed out
already, it is difficult to understand why the Alliance would not
allow the bill to go forward to third reading. However it is
better late than never. We hope the legislation is passed
quickly and without too much turmoil.
1225
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly, the bill stands referred
to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern
Development and Natural Resources.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
* * *
NUCLEAR FUEL WASTE ACT
The House resumed from May 15, consideration of the motion
that Bill C-27, an act respecting the long-term management of
nuclear fuel waste, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to
Bill C-27, an act respecting the long term management of nuclear
fuel waste.
The bill mandates the establishment of a long term management
strategy to ensure nuclear waste is disposed of in a
comprehensive, integrated and economically sound manner.
The bill has three key elements. The major owners of nuclear
fuel must establish and implement a long term management plan for
nuclear fuel waste. They also must establish a trust fund and
make set payments to the fund on an ongoing basis.
We support the bill in principle although we have concerns. The
onus to act should not fall entirely on industry. The government
should have an observer capacity and should share responsibility
for waste disposal. By and large, however, we support the bill.
There must be checks and balances to ensure waste is disposed of
properly and safely. However it is a major challenge. There is
an international aspect to the issue which, although not
immediately evident, should nonetheless frighten Canadians. We
are heading toward an environmental catastrophe not just next
door but across the ocean. The impact will affect Canadians from
coast to coast.
Radioactive waste is an intriguing problem because it lasts for
tens of thousands of years. When we deal with radioactive waste
we must make sure it does not come in contact with any aspects of
our biodiversity or ecology for 10,000 years. The decisions we
make today will affect generations far down the line. It is a
very difficult problem.
Fuel rods used in nuclear reactors last about three to four
years. Every nuclear plant deposits about 30 tonnes of nuclear
waste per year. What happens to the rods? After three to four
years they cannot carry on a nuclear reaction. However they
still have a great deal of power. A lot of energy is locked away
within used fuel rods and they can still be lethal to human
beings, animals and plants.
People exposed to nuclear materials can be killed outright.
However they also suffer from high rates of cancer, various
malignancies and other profound health effects that dramatically
shorten their lifespan.
We have about 18,000 tonnes of nuclear fuel in Canada. That
will expand as time passes. The challenge is deciding what to do
with it. How do we ensure public safety? That challenge will
affect us south of the border as well.
A number of principles need to be followed. They are as
follows. First, there must be a commitment to safety and
environmental protection when disposing of nuclear waste. Second,
nuclear waste materials must be accepted voluntarily by the host
community. In other words, any community in which we deposit
nuclear materials must give its consent.
1230
The decisions that community makes could potentially affect it
down the road. We do not know the long term affects of the
disposal of this material. We worry about leakage and cracks in
the tomb nuclear waste material is encased in. We do not know
what will happen to that nuclear material 5,000 years from now
when it will still be lethal and dangerous for human beings,
animals and plants.
From the outset there has to be open communication of
information with the communities involved. There can be no
secretive or unilateral decisions made to deposit nuclear waste
in areas near human habitation. The communities in the area must
be made aware and they must buy into it. In fairness to the host
community, a benefits provision in recognition of its service to
the community at large has to be recognized.
Some very interesting experiments have been done on the disposal
of this kind of material. I will talk about two of them. One is
called the nuclear powered turbo reciprocating engine. Rather
than burying the nuclear rods in the ground, can we extract the
considerable amount of energy contained within those nuclear
rods? That is an intriguing question. However the question also
poses some very interesting potential solutions on how to use the
nuclear rods by extracting energy from them for a longer period
of time. That is where the nuclear powered turbo reciprocating
engine comes into play.
This engine utilizes some of the remaining uranium within the
rods. We use uranium-235 in nuclear reactors. However
uranium-238, which cannot maintain a nuclear reaction, is in
sizeable proportions in the effete rods. The rods can be
bombarded with atoms which will break them apart and they will
release considerable amounts of energy.
While the fuel rods in their original state are used for about
three or four years in a nuclear reactor, they can be used for 13
to 15 more years, thus extracting more energy from the effete
rods than what would have been received in the first three to
four years. To use these rods for 18 years rather than 3 or 4
years is a very interesting proposal. When using the effete rods
there is still the problem of disposal at the end of that period
of time as they are still as radioactive as they were when they
originally came out of the nuclear reactor.
The government should ask the National Research Council to
explore this option with researchers in the United States who are
doing similar research. It is a simple principle of burning
rubbish rods and generating energy from them in a way that would
be very useful for our environment. This would also lead to
fewer rods being used if energy could be generated from the
effete rods. Therefore the nuclear waste that we would have to
deal with would be smaller.
Another option is called the fusion torch which was established
some time in the seventies when the possibility of fusion
reactions existed. For whatever reason there has been less
interest in exploring the possibility of fusion. However the
fusion torch can be used to burn the effete rods in a different
way through fusion reaction.
While fusion is not a reality at this point in time, I would ask
the government to have the National Research Council work with
scientists in the international community who are working on
fusion as a potential option for dealing with our nuclear waste
problem.
What I am about to tell the House now is truly frightening. It
is taking place in Russia and Ukraine and there is active
Canadian involvement. We all know what happened to Chernobyl,
the devastation that incident brought on the population there,
and how radioactive nuclear tides were spread over a large area.
What Canadians may not know is that there are many more
Chernobyls in Russia and Ukraine.
It is not only a problem for the people there. Radionucleotides
are cancer causing and teratogenic materials that enter our
ecosystem and bioaccumulate into other ecosystems far and wide.
1235
I had the honour of participating in discussions with members of
the government on this. We know many radionucleotides are
bioaccumulating in the flora and fauna in the Arctic, and that is
having a dramatic negative impact on the lives and health of the
people living there.
A Mayak reactor, which is located near Ozersk in Russia, was
supposed to be closed down. Lake Karachay, which is nearby, is
the repository of nuclear waste materials from that reactor. The
lake is the most radioactive place on our planet. If people were
to bathe in the lake it would kill them. One would think the
reactor would be shut down, but it is actually expanding, and it
is expanding with Canadian taxpayer money.
Canadian taxpayer money is being used to maintain the Mayak
reactor that is dumping radioactive waste materials into Lake
Karachay. This is having a dramatic, negative and lethal impact
upon the population there. Why is Canada funding a reactor in
Russia that is dumping radioactive waste materials into a lake
where people could be killed?
The goal has always been to shut down a lot of these reactors
that are effete. In the last 10 years Canada has put almost $90
million into shutting them down but we now know that a lot of the
money was not used for that purpose. These reactors are not only
open but a lot of the money has gone into the pockets of the
Russian bureaucracy.
Why is $90 million of Canadian taxpayer money being sent to
Russia in good faith only to be dumped into the bureaucracy and
into the pockets of private individuals, and then chewed up with
no end result?
As a G-7 country, Canada committed almost $300 million to make
sure those reactors were shut down, closed and cleansed of
radioactive material. That has not happened. Russian nuclear
weapons are being sent to the Mayak reactor so they can be
reprocessed into MOX fuel, which is a radioactive and lethal
fuel.
The Canadian government should be asking some tough questions of
the Russian government, such as where is the money that was sent,
why are the reactors not being closed down, and why is
radioactive material being dumped right into the biosphere with
no checks or balances whatsoever.
We were supposed to close the reactors down. Canadians will be
shocked to know that we are funding 40 new reactors in Russia.
However the reactors are using 30 year old technology that has
been widely dismissed as being dangerous and unsafe by western
standards. Why is Canada funding 40 new reactors in Russia that
have 30 year old technology? We are exporting to the
international community technology that is unsafe for us. Why
are we doing this?
This will lead to more Chernobyls, more Mayak reactors and more
nuclear waste being dumped into the biosphere. It will not
affect communities in the former U.S.S.R. but it will affect all
of us. Our government does not know where the money has gone or
where we are supposed to spend it.
1240
Little has changed in Russia in terms of nuclear reactors,
cleanup mechanisms, and checks and balances that ought to be
there. There are many other Chernobyl-type situations just
waiting on the horizon.
Another aspect that would be frightening for Canadians to
realize is that in Ukraine, which has a number of nuclear
reactors, the government has stripped the regulating body of its
monitoring powers. What is happening is that fewer checks and
balances are being put in place. This will have a lethal and
devastating effect not only on that country but on all former
eastern bloc countries.
CIDA has said that the money that it sent has simply
disappeared. Millions of dollars have disappeared. Money was
also sent through Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to finance a
program that would increase the operating safety of nuclear
reactor plants. That was a great idea. Who could argue with
that?
It also wanted to clean up Europe's largest nuclear power plant,
the Leningrad nuclear power station near St. Petersburg, because
it was unsafe. The power plant continues to operate. The money
that was sent to clean up these operations and to close them down
has done absolutely nothing at all.
CIDA also gave $500,000 to Russia's nuclear regulatory agency,
GAN, but legislation currently before the Russian parliament will
transfer the GAN's licensing powers to another group called
Minatom. Minatom will be a self-regulating company beyond the
reach of government. Why are we sending money to the Russian
government to fund a regulatory agency that will have no powers?
We are sending money to an agency that will have nothing to do
with regulations because the regulatory body has been moved to
something else and will be a toothless tiger. It will have no
checks and balances, no government regulation, no transparency
and no public involvement. That is very frightening. Canadians
would never tolerate that type of situation here.
Canadians would demand, and rightfully so, that the nuclear
regulatory agency be monitored by a public transparent
organization. What Canada is doing with its international aid
money is sending millions of dollars into a big, black hole where
it is not producing the intended effect.
I encourage the minister responsible for international
development, when she hears about these issues, to take a very
aggressive position. The Minister of Foreign Affairs should also
make immediate interventions with President Putin and the Russian
government to get to the bottom of it.
If he cannot do that, Canada should choke off all moneys going
into these programs and should rally the international community
to say that no more money will be sent to clean up Russian
nuclear waste sites or to decommission nuclear reactors until we
know where it will go and where the other money has gone. The
Russian government has a great deal to answer for and has
poisoned the good will of Canadians and the international
community.
The last aspect I want to talk about is the issue of depleted
uranium. This came up as a big issue after the war in the former
Yugoslavia and the gulf war. A number of our soldiers came back
with strange illnesses such as malignancies, weaknesses and
depressed immune systems. No answers were found as to the cause.
The Department of National Defence said very clearly that it did
not believe it was due to anything in particular and that these
people just got sick as a matter of course.
There is the larger question of whether or not depleted uranium,
which is radioactive and can have lethal effects on individuals,
contributed to the illness of men and women in uniform, not only
those from our country but also other participants who came back
from both the gulf war and the former Yugoslavia.
1245
I emphasize that it is essential for the Minister of National
Defence to work with the international community to obtain an
answer for our soldiers. They deserve one. We must have an
answer to determine whether depleted uranium has a negative
effect, whether on impact the dust created that can travel for
more than 100 kilometres has a deleterious and potentially lethal
effect on the health of our soldiers. We have a responsibility
in that regard.
Many people from around the world are looking at this question.
If we work with our international defence partners on the matter
together, we will have the answer for our soldiers who have been
affected in some unknown way as yet by some terrible diseases.
Actually a group on the east coast has done some very
interesting studies. It found residues of radioactive uranium in
the bodies of individuals who came back. If my memory serves me,
I believe residue has been found in the bodies of 12 of 20
individuals.
The department of defence has said this was not a problem. I
urge the department not to take such a cavalier attitude toward
the problem and not to completely dismiss it. It should deal
with and explore the facts and the signs. It should not deal
with it individually but work with the international community
that is struggling to find an answer to this very important
problem.
It is not only important because of what happened in the past
but because depleted uranium is still being used. It is being
used in the anti-tank ammunition of the A-10 warthogs and
anti-tank weapons that are used on the ground. The number of
countries that are using it has expanded dramatically over the
last few years. Pakistan and India, our NATO partners, and many
other countries are using DU munitions in their military.
This is not only a problem that has happened in the past. It
will happen in the future. We must find the answer. A concerted
international effort by defence departments and scientists from
around the world will get to the bottom of it. We owe it to our
men and women in uniform not only to find the answers but to make
sure they are treated with more care and consideration. That is
our minimum responsibility to them.
We support the bill. We recognize that nuclear waste is a very
serious problem, but for it to be disposed of wisely we must have
buy-in from the communities. There must be an open and
transparent process for where it will be put, how it will be
disposed of, and the tomb these nuclear materials will be encased
in.
I also encourage the government to work with the international
community to look at alternatives. I have spoken about the
fusion torch. I have spoken about the NPTRE that can be used as
another way of burning effete nuclear rods. We can use these
things to decrease the amount of nuclear waste that we will
ultimately have.
I encourage Canada to work with the international community to
do it. It is another one of those problems that not only affect
us but affects the international community and all those who are
in possession of nuclear reactors.
We have to deal with former U.S.S.R. countries to find out where
the tens of millions of dollars have gone that we have sent to
Russia and Ukraine for decommissioning nuclear reactors and other
nuclear waste material.
It has not gone where it should be going. There are other
Chernobyls on the horizon. People will be killed. Canada can
play a very important international role with our other partners
in this regard. We all have a vested interest in ensuring that
nuclear waste is disposed of wisely. I encourage the government
to work with all of us and the international community to make
sure that happens.
1250
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise today to speak to the bill on the long term management of
nuclear fuel waste.
First, I would like to draw a parallel with the discussions on
open line shows this morning. Yesterday, the finance minister
gave his economic update. On a local radio show in my riding
people were expressing their views on various elements of the
minister's statement, including the debt.
Why am I talking about the debt? People where saying that over
the past 30 years previous governments had been accumulating the
debt.
The government is now taking steps to pay it down as quickly as
possible so that future generations are not stuck with reimbursing
the amounts borrowed by previous generations.
What I want to stress here is responsibility. We must take
responsibility for what we are doing now and for what we did in
the past. When it comes to the nuclear world, nuclear waste in
particular, we are told, depending on the source, that nuclear
waste can last 200 years, 300 years or 500 years. Other sources
mention 1,000 years, or even several thousands of years.
How can we deal responsibly with waste that will affect people
throughout the world for hundreds, even thousands of years?
Since we have been talking about the nuclear industry for a
number of years, I would like to step into the past and point
out a few things about the background to the bill.
In February 1998, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
published the “Report of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and
Disposal Concept Environmental Assessment Panel”, known as the
Seaborn report.
In a 1978 joint statement, the governments of Canada and Ontario
asked Atomic Energy Canada Limited to develop a concept for the
deep geological disposal of nuclear fuel waste.
In a later joint statement, in 1981, they agreed not to go ahead
with the selection of a site for that purpose without first
holding proper public hearings at the federal level and
submitting the concept to the approval of Canadian and
provincial authorities.
In September 1988, the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources referred the concept, along with a broad range of
nuclear fuel waste management issues, for public review.
On October 4 1989, the federal Minister of the Environment
appointed an independent environmental assessment panel to
conduct the review.
At that time, the panel's mandate was to review a concept rather
than a specific project at a specific site. The panel was also
mandated to review a proposal for which the implementing agency
was not identified, and to establish a scientific review group
of distinguished independent experts to examine the safety and
scientific acceptability of the proposal.
The mandate also involved reviewing a broad range of policy
issues. Finally, all those elements had to be reviewed in the
five provinces concerned.
1255
AECL describes its concept as a method of geological disposal of
nuclear fuel waste in which the waste form is either used CANDU,
or Canada deuterium uranium, fuel or the solidified high level
waste from reprocessing. The waste form is sealed in a
container designed to last at least 500 years and possibly much
longer.
Waste containers are placed within the confines of underground
disposal rooms or in boreholes drilled from the rooms. The
disposal rooms are between 500 and 1,000 metres below the
surface. The geological medium is plutonic rock of the Canadian
Shield.
Such a facility would cost an estimated $8.7 billion to
$13.3 billion in 1991 dollars, depending on the amount of waste
to be disposed of. The panel conducted its review in several
provinces, including Quebec and Ontario. It did environmental
impact assessments and consulted the public, namely the natives.
Among other activities, the terms of reference directed the
panel to examine the criteria by which the safety and
acceptability of the concept for long term waste management and
disposal should be evaluated.
It also required the panel to prepare a final report addressing
whether AECL's concept is safe and acceptable or should be
modified, and the future steps to be taken in managing nuclear
fuel wastes in Canada.
Here are some key panel conclusions. Broad public support is
necessary in Canada to ensure the acceptability of a concept for
managing nuclear fuel wastes. Safety is a key part but only one
part of acceptability. Safety must be viewed from two
complementary perspectives: technical and social.
To be considered acceptable, a concept for managing nuclear fuel
wastes must have broad public support, as I was saying earlier,
and must be advanced by a stable and trustworthy proponent and
overseen by a trustworthy regulator. Therefore, for the public,
the level of confidence in the people and organizations managing
nuclear wastes is very important.
After applying these criteria to the AECL disposal concept, the
panel came to a number of key conclusions.
The key panel conclusions are the following: from a technical
perspective, the panel believes that safety of the AECL concept
has been on balance adequately demonstrated for a conceptual
stage of development, but from a social perspective, it has not.
It also says that, as it stands, the AECL concept for deep
geological disposal has not been demonstrated to have broad
public support. The concept in its current form does not have
the required level of acceptability to be adopted as Canada's
approach for managing nuclear fuel wastes.
Then the panel considered the steps that must be taken to ensure
the safe and acceptable long term management of nuclear fuel
wastes in Canada.
1300
Here are its main recommendations.
A number of additional steps are required to develop an approach
for managing nuclear fuel wastes in a way that could achieve
broad public support.
Among other things, we should issue a policy statement governing
the management of these wastes; initiate an aboriginal
participation process; create a nuclear fuel waste management
organization, or NFWMA—but its better to use the full name, so we
know what we are talking about; a public review of the
regulatory documents of the AECB through effective consultation
processes.
We also need to develop a comprehensive public participation
plan, to develop an ethical and social assessment framework and
to compare the options for the management of nuclear wastes.
Taking into account the views of participants in our public
hearings and our own analysis, the commission developed the
following basic recommendations to governments with respect to a
management agency.
It was recommended that a nuclear fuel waste management
organization
be established quickly, at arm's length from the utilities and
AECL, with the sole purpose of managing and co-ordinating the
full range of activities relating to the long term management of
nuclear fuel wastes.
Another recommendation was that the agency be fully funded in
all its operations from a segregated fund to which only the
producers and owners of nuclear fuel wastes would contribute.
It was also recommended that its board of directors, appointed
by the federal government, be representative of key
stakeholders, and that it have a strong and active advisory
council representative of a wide variety of interested parties.
It was also recommended that its purposes, responsibilities and
accountability, particularly in relation to the ownership of the
wastes, be clearly and explicitly spelled out, preferably in
legislation or in its charter of incorporation.
It was also recommended that it be subject to multiple oversight
mechanisms, including federal regulatory control with respect to
its scientific-technical work and the adequacy of its financial
guarantees, to policy direction from the federal government and
to regular public review, preferably by parliament.
Finally, the commission pointed out that until the
foregoing steps have been completed and broad public acceptance
of a nuclear fuel waste management approach has been achieved,
the search for a specific site should not proceed.
If the AECL concept is chosen as the most acceptable option
after implementation of the steps recommended above, governments
should direct the NFWMA, together with Natural Resources Canada
and the AECB or its successor, to undertake a review all the
social and technical shortcomings identified by the scientific
review group and other review participants, to establish their
priority and to generate a plan to address them.
The nuclear fuel waste management organization should make its
plan public, carry out public consultations and then implement
its plan.
1305
As members will recall in the Seaborn report, the panel
recommended that the federal government establish a management
committee with the objective of finding solutions for nuclear
fuel waste management and implementing them.
However there has been a change of approach and through Bill
C-27 the government has decided to pass the waste management
responsibility off to the provinces. In Quebec, Hydro-Quebec
should be the one in charge of establishing a waste management
organization.
I point out that the WMO must establish, by appointing its
members, an advisory committee to study proposals and make
recommendations.
The idea is to establish a waste management organization
whose objective will be to set out nuclear fuel waste management
proposals for the federal government and to implement the
proposal it accepts. The WMO established by Hydro-Quebec must
then make available to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and to
any owners of nuclear fuel waste produced in Canada, at a
reasonable cost of course, nuclear fuel waste management
services as provided in the proposal approved by the governor in
council.
When I gave details about Hydro-Quebec,, I must say that I was
venturing an opinion and was interpreting a little.
Would Hydro-Québec make recommendations? If so, would it do so
individually or in conjunction with the group mentioned in the
bill? This group is comprised of the Ontario Power Generation,
Hydro-Québec, a New Brunswick power corporation and Atomic Energy
of Canada.
Some aspects of the bill are not clear. For example, we presume
that all these stakeholders will work on a nuclear waste
management policy but we can also presume that this would be
done individually.
As for financing, the nuclear energy corporations, such as
Hydro-Québec and Atomic Energy of Canada, would individually or
jointly, as I said earlier, create a trust fund that would be used
for implementing the approved waste management proposal.
Under the bill, Hydro-Quebec would have to pay, 10 days after
the day on which the bill came into force, $20 million for its
fund, and $4 million in each subsequent year. Afterward, the
waste management organization, Hydro-Québec, would be able to
propose shares to the federal government.
We also know that there is interest on any late payment. I
suppose members know about this. We all get into situations
where payments are due but not in arrears, of course. If the
funds or the interest are not paid, the bill provides for fines
not exceeding $300,000 for each day on which the offence is
committed.
In this trust, the first withdrawal of funds must be for an
authorized construction or storage activity. The funds must be
used to implement the proposal approved by the minister.
Examination of the bill shows that the proposal to the minister
should include three management approaches, particularly
concerning the following: disposal in the Canadian Shield;
storage on site at nuclear plants; centralized storage, either
above or below ground; a comparison of the benefits, risks and
costs taking into account the economic area to be determined; a
description of management services; an implementation plan; a
timeframe, and especially a program for public consultation and
an annual financing formula for policy implementation.
1310
However there is a hitch in the bill, which provides, as I read
it and I think that I am right, that only the minister can hold
public consultations. As we know, consultation is crucial because
we also know that the capacity to rely on those who will manage
nuclear waste is just as crucial.
Of course the waste management organization will have to submit an
annual report of its activities. The form, the updated estimated
total cost, the financing formula, the amount of the deposit to
be paid, of course, and the amount of the final guarantees to be
included in the annual report must be approved by the minister.
All these reports will be tabled and the minister will make a
public announcement in this regard. Let me repeat that this
report still provides for fines of $50,000 to $300,000 per day
of violation. Should we consider that as an incentive for the
tabling of these reports on time? I think so. Are the fines
too high given the importance of the reports to be tabled? It
is a question worth asking. The members will answer if they
want to.
The Canadian government is the only one that regulates the
nuclear industry. It has invested more than $5 billion in this
area over the years and approximately $150 million a year since
1994, whereas all the other countries of the world, even those
that use nuclear energy the most, are reviewing their use of
this type of energy and are even thinking about progressively
decommissioning their nuclear power plants and opting for
alternative energy sources.
The Liberal government is determined to promote this type of
energy as an interesting alternative to fossil fuels, which
create more pollution in spite of the virulent public
opposition and the major problem of radioactive waste. Last
year, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited estimated that it would
cost $377 million to decontaminate its plants and dispose of the
waste.
However, the Seaborn panel clearly indicated in 1998 that the
estimated cost of a long term nuclear waste management facility
ranged from $8.7 billion to $13.3 billion in 1991 . Today, the
amount is estimated at $15 billion for most countries, such as
France and the United States.
Therefore, the amount of $20 billion, plus $4 million annually
for Quebec, raises questions in our minds. Will it be enough? In
November 1999, at a meeting of the parties to the convention on
climate change held in Bonn, Germany, Canada proposed a plan
that would give emission credits to countries that export
nuclear reactors, which would enable Canada to meet its targets
indirectly without reducing its own emissions.
Despite growing opposition from the people, Canada is continuing
down the nuclear path instead of favouring renewable energy and
adopting strong policies for the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions.
1315
During the last election campaign, the Bloc Quebecois promised
to suggest that the federal government cancel any funding to the
nuclear fission industry and that the $150 million that go to
that industry every year be retargeted for research and
development in the area of clean energy.
Since this opens the door to exporting nuclear waste, one has to
wonder if the government really understands the public's
opposition to this type of project.
On the subject of importation, in a previous committee sitting,
I had the opportunity to discuss with officials from the
Department of Natural Resources.
I asked one of them, with respect to importing nuclear wastes,
if the waste management organization were to find relatively good
solutions—being taken for granted, of course, that we support
nuclear projects and therefore consider that the proposals are
relatively good—should we fear that nuclear waste might be
imported to get a better return on our investment in various
waste management programs or projects that Canada might
implement?
This is a major risk because in every one of our communities
there are waste disposal sites for solid waste or domestic
waste. We know what this is all about. When I was on the
municipal council in Sherbrooke, we had a waste disposal site.
There is one in my ward. One can imagine the problem it creates.
When it comes to the management of nuclear waste or any other
kind of waste—of course technically they cannot be compared,
although as far as a process is concerned it is the same
thing—nobody wants it in their backyard. We all know that. We do
not want to see waste imported because it has happened before.
It has happened in Quebec and I am convinced it has happened in
other provinces too. We should avoid it.
In view of the fact that often the only thing that matters
for our Liberal government is money, I am afraid that at some
time in the future waste will be imported to make our nuclear
waste management system more profitable.
It is something we must keep in mind because the official from
the Department of Natural Resources told me that for the time
being they had more than enough to do in dealing with our own
waste. What concerns me, not to say scares me, is the fact that
he said that for the time being they are not considering this.
When I am told “For the time being, we are not planning on it”,
am I to understand that their plans may change tomorrow, next
week or next year?
That is why the bill must really be transparent. All its details
must be clear, precise and, to the extent possible, be
assessed. Moreover, even though consultation is provided for in
the legislation, we must never neglect to consult. The
population must be consulted.
Even if the urgency is evident, we believe that public
consultation—and let it be clear that we do not want the kind of
bogus consultation that was held in regards to MOX and that
lasted only 28 days—is necessary and fundamental.
Another thing will have to be closely considered. The bill
intends to force Quebec or, more precisely, Hydro-Quebec to
operate according to the proposal that will be adopted by the
natural resources minister in Ottawa and to the criteria set by
him. Is Quebec really in agreement with these criteria? That is
what we will determine later.
1320
We also have a concern about the fines provided for in the bill.
Do members not think that the fines imposed for each day of
infraction are excessive, considering that this type of bill
always contains variable factors? We know that the bill contains
provisions allowing additional delay, but the issue of fines is
still of concern us.
If we look briefly at the situation of Canada's nuclear power
stations, we find that the obligation to treat nuclear fuel
waste is unfortunately something that the Bloc Quebecois cannot
oppose, but we do strongly oppose the use of fuel and the
operation of power plants using nuclear fission.
As members know, in his most recent report, the auditor general
clearly indicated that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
needs to improve its regulatory regime for power reactors.
Among other things, the audit pointed out that the
commission does not use quantitative measures to rate nuclear
power facilities.
According to the auditor general, the rating systems used are
not always based on specific criteria but rather on the
judgment and expertise of staff.
While we do not believe that the staff would be dishonest and is
probably competent, we would like to point out that the auditor
general said, and I quote:
Moreover, as the auditor general pointed out in the report, CNSC
faces significant difficulties in recruiting and retaining
qualified staff. Combined with its current regulatory regime,
which relies heavily on the expertise and judgment of staff, the
lack of human resource capacity could impact its ability to
function adequately in the future.
Considering that only a responsible approach is necessary on
this matter, the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-27, while
maintaining major reservations. The Bloc Quebecois will continue
to follow the matter very carefully because there are major
issues involved in this bill.
These issues relate to the huge economic investment required for
a management regime based on the protection of the environment
and of the health of Quebecers. The Canadian people and even the
American people would be affected by this bill. While Mr. Bush is
not giving a lot of hope on this matter and the Canadian
government has a strange approach toward this, we consider it
our duty to ensure first and foremost that the bill does not
have negative consequences and that the issues will be carefully
considered at all stages.
At this point, we agree on the bill but we have very major
reservations.
In conclusion, people need to have a good
relationship with the main stakeholders, as, of course, with the
federal government in its responsibilities on waste management.
There must also be a trust relationship with the fuel nuclear
waste management organization.
1325
If it is possible to create this trust, we will get the support
of the public. The public will have to be consulted, but it has
to be real consultation and not token consultation, as I said
earlier.
The bill will have to be very specific on the potential for
importing nuclear waste. It must be clear that the waste
management organization's sole purpose is to manage nuclear waste from
Quebec and Canada. We know very well that nobody would accept
nuclear waste from other countries, with all the risks involved.
Our responsibility today is crucial.
We are making decisions that will have an impact on events that
could occur in hundreds or thousands of years. Some people are
used to managing without any long term vision but here we need
to consider future generations, and much more than the next few
generations, as we are talking about hundreds and thousands of
years.
We will get a chance in committee to deal with various aspects
of the bill and we retain the right to move amendments to Bill
C-27.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that you
seek the consent of the House to see the clock as being 1.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION
The House resumed from March 26 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in this debate. I believe our caucus is the
only one that has not had the opportunity yet to participate in
the debate.
Debate is on the motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois member
for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie. The motions states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should show
leadership on the international stage: (a) by taking action
designed to increase the number of signatory countries to the
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction; (b) by signing bilateral treaties that include
commitments to respect custody and access orders as originally
handed down by the courts; and (c) by taking the necessary steps
within its own borders to combat international child abduction.
I read with some degree of interest what the spokespeople for
all other parties in the House had to say on this topic. It is
very timely that the Bloc member introduced the motion. I note
it has the support of the government, the Official Opposition,
the Progressive Conservative Party, and now the New Democratic
Party today.
There are three parts to the motion. It is not necessary to go
into great detail because it has the unanimous support of all
five parties in the House of Commons.
I am pleased to be adding the weight and support of the New
Democratic Party to this and would take my seat on that point.
1330
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I add on behalf of the Canadian
Alliance our support of the motion, which deals with a very
important and tragic situation affecting quite a number of
families. It is a problem that is largely unrecognized.
Therefore we support the essence of this private member's motion
and compliment the member responsible.
The motion asks Canada to show leadership in the following ways:
The scope of this problem is significant. In the United States
in one year, 341,000 children were abducted from their parents.
This is a huge number. In the United Kingdom roughly four
children per week are abducted and that number has actually
increased by 58% over the last three years. In our country there
are similar statistics. We can see that this is not only an
international problem but also very much a domestic problem, and
the impact upon families is quite significant.
We support the Hague convention that deals with missing and
exploited children, but there are some problems with it. I will
point out some of them which need to be addressed by our country
with the international community. There is a lack of systemic
data on the operation of the Hague convention. It does not allow
a country by country comparison. There are also wide variations
in outcomes that point to systemic problems with the application
of the Hague convention in different countries. There is a lot
of difficulty in locating children who are subject to this
convention and there is a lack of adequate support for the
victims' families.
There are also interesting variations among the judicial
community, especially judges and lawyers. A lot of people are
not aware of this. There are great inter-country variations in
regard to knowledge of the convention. I would encourage our
country to work with other signatories to the Hague convention,
not only, as the motion says, to add more countries to the
convention but also to educate the judiciary within the signatory
countries about the application and the importance of this
convention. There has also been quite a significant lack of
enforceability on some of the orders we have seen with respect to
the Hague convention.
With respect to our own laws, the motion asks that we take the
necessary steps within our own borders not only to combat
international child abduction but to ensure that access orders
are respected within our own borders.
Many members of the House have spoken to constituents who are
non-custodial parents and have court orders allowing them access
to their children. Unfortunately many of these court orders are
not respected by the custodial parents. As a result,
non-custodial parents continue to engage in battles to see their
children. There is not enough protection within our own borders
today to ensure that non-custodial parents have access to their
children. At the end of the day, children need two competent
parents, not one, if it is at all possible. If there are two
parents, they should still remember, no matter what has come
between them, that the children come first. With the safety of
the children paramount and where both parents are competent, even
though they may not be together, they should both have access to
the children, according to court decisions. Too often that is
not the case.
A senate report done on custody, access and divorce shows very
clearly that Canada is lagging behind in its enforcement of these
orders and that many non-custodial parents are denied access to
their children. I would encourage the government to review that
report. It is an excellent report supported by members from
across party lines. The government should fulfil and implement
the conclusions within that report.
The report contains many excellent suggestions that would help
children who have been racked by the divorce of their parents.
1335
In closing, I can only compliment the member responsible
for this motion and emphasize that the Canadian Alliance supports
this private member's motion. We also encourage the government
to work with its international partners to strengthen the Hague
convention and to ensure that the signatories are living up to
the requirements therein.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
MOTION NO. 219
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to discussions among all parties and the member
for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie concerning the taking of the division
on Motion No. 219 scheduled at the conclusion of private members'
business today, I think you would find consent for the following
motion:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on Motion No. 219 all
questions necessary to dispose of the said motion be deemed put,
a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Monday, May
28, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the chief government whip have
consent of the House to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
BILL C-222
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are trying to organize the business of the House
collaboratively. Again pursuant to discussions among all parties
concerning the division on Bill C-222 scheduled at the conclusion
of private members' business on May 28, 2001, I believe you would
find consent for the following motion:
That at the conclusion of the debate on Bill C-222 on Monday, May
28, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion for second
reading be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and
deferred to Monday, May 28, at the expiry of the time provided
for government orders.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the chief government whip have
the consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
briefly capture some of the essence of what I hear as agreement
in the Chamber on this motion.
As outlined in the government's initial response to the motion,
we do celebrate the fact that Canada has an internationally
recognized record of achievement domestically and on the world
stage in responding to parental international child abduction.
Today I am here to say that the government's position is
supportive of the motion before the House.
Twenty years ago Canada initiated negotiations that led to the
drafting of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction. From the original three
countries, including Canada, the number of countries that have
become party to the Hague convention has risen to over seventy.
Canada has consistently encouraged countries to become party to
the Hague convention, which remains the only multilateral
international instrument designed to prevent and resolve cases of
parental international child abduction. Canada is at the
forefront of international efforts to ensure that the Hague
convention is implemented effectively in other countries. In
particular, Canada was represented at the recent fourth special
commission which met in March 2001 to review the operation of
this convention. Everything can always be improved, of course.
In cases where the Hague convention does not apply, Canada
offers significant assistance to left behind Canadian parents,
always with the goal of securing the safe return of the child to
Canada. Canada has also negotiated two innovative bilateral
agreements, one with Egypt and one with Lebanon, which are not
party to the Hague convention itself. This has helped us develop
measures to help resolve cases of child abduction to non-Hague
convention countries.
As a co-ordinator of much of this work, Canada has in place a
world recognized best practice program to prevent and resolve
cases of missing and abducted children.
1340
We also have our missing children program. I remember that from
my days as parliamentary secretary at then Revenue Canada.
The partners in this program, the RCMP, the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Immigration
Canada, as well as the Montreal urban community police, are there
to help Canadians in this very trying time period whenever a
child has been child separated from their parent. If we can
assist, we do a service to everyone involved.
We will evaluate the motion of hon. member for
Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.
The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade back in 1998 drafted a report called “International Child
Abduction: Issues for Reform”. Those initiatives demonstrated
the longstanding commitment by the Government of Canada to seek
methods of preventing international child abduction where
possible and to find the remedies when abductions occurred.
A manual for parents on international child abduction was
prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs. That can be
obtained through members of parliament. It is an effective tool
in assisting parents to understand the processes and options
available to them when a child is abducted by another parent,
which sadly occurs more than we would like it to.
The manual also serves as an important preventive tool which
alerts parents to the causes of parental child abduction and the
steps they can take to protect the children involved.
The federal Departments of Justice and Foreign Affairs are
working in collaboration with the federal central authority and
with provincial and territorial central authorities to examine
even better ways of collecting national statistics on
international child abduction cases that are managed under the
Hague Convention.
At this year's our missing children conference, which is being
organized by the department of immigration and brings together
all the key players in the area of missing and abducted children,
sessions will be devoted to international child abduction and to
reporting any new initiatives under way to improve the operation
of the convention, both here and abroad.
We also have to deal with those countries that currently do not
perform as well as we would wish under the Hague Convention. For
the sake of Canadian children, we must encourage all countries to
re-examine their priorities with a view to improving the
operation of the Hague Convention in their own respective
jurisdictions.
The Departments of Foreign Affairs and Justice will continue to
raise with other countries problems encountered with the
operation and the implementation of the Hague Convention.
Through policy and operational linkages previously established,
particularly between the provincial and territorial central
authorities and the relevant federal departments, specific
problems being encountered in other countries can quickly be
identified and raised in appropriate ways through our consular
and diplomatic networks. This is work that the government
intends to intensify.
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction is an effective instrument that addresses only one of a
multitude of issues that often prevail in international child
abduction cases. It attempts to deal with and provide guidance
on one of the most complex and emotional issues that we, whether
as parents, lawmakers or interested individuals, may ever have to
deal with; a cross-border child abduction. It assists in
providing a framework for proceeding when our family ties are
under severe stress or disintegrate to the point that the
children disappear.
The underlying principle of the Hague Convention is to respond
in a way that protects the best interests of the affected
children. Canada is committed to this principle and also
committed to making it work, even when family disputes cross
international borders and those situations have internally broken
down families to the point where the abduction has taken place.
This is a non-partisan issue. It is an issue that can grip the
hearts and intellects of all members in the Chamber. I hope we
can work together to advance the cause before us to all our
benefit.
1345
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you
will easily understand that it makes me proud to rise today to
speak to Motion No. 219, which is aimed at preventing tragedies
that will mark you for the rest of your life from occurring
again.
I am particularly happy to see that on May 29 every member of
the House will be called upon to vote on the motion.
If I may I will read the motion moved by my colleague from
Rosemont—Petite-Patrie:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should show
leadership on the international stage: (a) by taking action
designed to increase the number of signatory countries to the
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction; (b) by signing bilateral treaties that include
commitments to respect custody and access orders as originally
handed down by the courts; and (c) by taking the necessary steps
within its own borders to combat international child abduction.
In 1999 in Canada more than 350 Canadian children disappeared.
The worst tragedy that may befall a family is to lose a child.
Children may be lost in a senseless accident or to a fatal
disease, be it slow or fast. Families eventually have to
overcome their grief.
When a child is lost under those circumstances, the wound heals
with time.
When a child simply vanishes, I do not think a mother can ever
get over the loss, nor a father, although as we well know most
children are taken away by the father. The figure in Quebec for
1999 was 61 children.
My colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie has brought forward this
motion in part because he is well aware of the situation but also
because his partner is experiencing this very trauma. This is a
motion anchored in peoples' day to day realities.
A few weeks ago there were news reports of a father being
intercepted at a New York airport with his son. He was
attempting to return to his country. Why was there success in
this case? It was the result of considerable co-operation
between police, customs and airport authorities.
In these situations, which are always dramatic, time is the
child's worst enemy. Effective measures must become the rule.
When parents report that a child is missing and there are good
reasons to believe that the child may have been abducted—usually
a child does not simply vanish into thin air—we must act quickly.
The third part of the motion deals with the need for quick
action.
I think everyone knows how important this motion is and how
important it is to make it clear to the international community
that for Canada the right of a child to be with his or her
parents is sacred. Abducting a child, taking a child from one of
his or her parents, is unacceptable. The only way to show that
something is unacceptable is to make it impossible.
On behalf of my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, I am taking
the liberty of thanking all parliamentarians who spoke to the
motion. I thank the government for saying loud and clear that it
will support the motion. What I am reading into this is that we
will soon see practical measures because of the government's
commitment in this regard.
[English]
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
not going spend a great deal of time on this, but it is such an
important issue. As has already been mentioned, it is a
non-partisan issue, and we want to be on the record as supporting
it.
1350
All of us as parents and friends of those who have children
realize how important it is to keep family units together. In a
great country like Canada where the family is such an important
unit, perhaps it is even more true than anywhere else.
When we think that families can be divided because one or other
decides to leave and go back to his or her place of former
residence, or perhaps just to take off and take one or more of
the children, we all realize the impact it has on the family and
on our community generally.
Our country, our government, should take whatever steps we can
at an international level to ensure that other countries feel the
same way as we do. In the agreements we sign we should make sure
that in the event these happenings occur, which they should not,
we can quickly move on them without having to see people go
through devastating experiences. I am thinking of the book
written by Betty Mahmoody, Not Without My Daughter. Those
of us who have read it or seen the movie understand what that
family went through. Certainly we all have our own examples.
Just a couple of years ago in the St. John's area a father took
his three young children and disappeared. It is has been a
couple of years. No one knows where they have gone, if they are
still in the country or have left the country. It has had a
devastating effect on the family and certainly on the community
generally.
Canada is melting pot of nationalities. Because of that many of
our younger people marry people who come from other countries and
sometimes, if things do not work out, they leave. Occasionally
they have taken the children, which has caused tremendous grief.
It is interesting that in many of the cases where young people
have been abducted security forces at airports have had concerns
that something was wrong but did not have the proof or the
authority to do anything about it.
Those of us who have travelled extensively over the years
remember that the times when we went to airports and the first
prominent people standing around were members of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police. It might be worth while asking if we
have been too lax in airport security. I know we have good
people checking our suitcases and frisking us. That is all
wonderful, but many things go through airports that cannot be
detected by a scanner, whether they be hand-held or otherwise.
Professional people understand and identify problems. Looking
for signs is important. There is an old saying that forewarned
is forearmed. Perhaps we could tighten up the security, even if
it means having the RCMP again playing a prominent role at
airports. The extra cost is very little in comparison with the
grief caused to too many families. As I say, because of our
international involvement and the type of country we have, we are
susceptible to such things happening.
As we move ahead in this regard, it is not something we should
only deal with if a meeting happens to be called somewhere along
the line. It is an issue Canada should push and should keep
pushing until we get everyone agreeing with us.
Many people agree with us. Sometimes the more people come
together, the more others are embarrassed not to do so. Despite
their own national concerns about family units and how they
operate and whatever, surely there is no one anywhere in the
world who would deny the right of children to be with their
parents, certainly the ones most responsible for looking after
them.
1355
We certainly support the measure and ask the government to do
everything in its power to make sure that abductions of Canada's
children end.
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order to inform the House that May 25, next week, will be
Missing Children's Day.
I believe that for the parents who have to live day after day
with the tragedy of the loss of a child, the testimony given
today will act as a healing balm.
I would be remiss if I did not use this forum and take this
opportunity to pass on this information.
The Deputy Speaker: I must conclude that, from a procedural
point of view, this is not a point of order but rather an
information bulletin.
It is fair ball, however, and it is a very important issue.
[English]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order made earlier
today, the question on Motion No. 219 is deemed put and the
recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Monday, May
28, 2001, at the expiry of the time provided for government
orders.
[Translation]
It being 2 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, May
28, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 24 and 28.
(The House adjourned at 1.56 p.m.)