37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 055
CONTENTS
Friday, May 4, 2001
1000
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| BLUE WATER BRIDGE AUTHORITY ACT
|
| Bill S-5. Second reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1010
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1015
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1020
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1025
| MARINE LIABILITY ACT
|
| Bill S-2. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
| Motions in Amendment
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 1
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| Motion No. 2
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1030
1035
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1040
1045
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1050
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1100
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| Mr. James Moore |
| BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| COMPOSTING WEEK
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| ATLANTIC JOURNALISM AWARDS
|
| Mr. Shawn Murphy |
| CANADIAN AIRLINES EMPLOYEES
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1105
| YOUTH OUTLOOKS
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| CHEESE IMPORTS
|
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
| MENTAL HEALTH WEEK
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| OSLO ACCORDS
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
1110
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| LUMBER
|
| Mr. Jean-Yves Roy |
| INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WEEK
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| ATLANTIC CANADA
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| ATLANTIC TECHNOLOGY CENTRE
|
| Mr. Lawrence O'Brien |
1115
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1120
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
1125
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1130
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
1135
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
1140
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
| HIGHWAYS
|
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Tony Tirabassi |
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1145
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Hon. John Manley |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1150
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| CONTAMINATED SITES
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
1155
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| ATLANTIC TRADE MISSION
|
| Mr. Dominic LeBlanc |
| Hon. Robert Thibault |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| SENIORS
|
1200
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Documents
|
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| SAHTU DENE AND METIS LAND CLAIMS AGREEMENT REPORT
|
| Hon. Robert Nault |
1205
| GWICH'IN LAND CLAIMS AGREEMENT REPORT
|
| Hon. Robert Nault |
| YUKON LAND CLAIMS AGREEMENT REPORT
|
| Hon. Robert Nault |
| INUVIALUIT FINAL AGREEMENT REPORT
|
| Hon. Robert Nault |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural
|
| Mr. John Godfrey |
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-343. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| CONTRAVENTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-344. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1210
| IMMIGRATION ACT
|
| Bill C-345. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| ENDANGERED SPECIES SANCTUARIES ACT
|
| Bill C-346. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| BLOOD SAMPLES ACT
|
| Bill C-347. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1215
| CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
|
| Bill S-11. First reading
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Pesticides
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Genetically Modified Food
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1220
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MARINE LIABILITY ACT
|
| Bill S-2. Report stage
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1225
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1230
1235
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
1240
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-245. Second reading
|
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
1245
1250
1255
| Mr. John Maloney |
1300
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1305
1310
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1315
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
1320
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 055
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, May 4, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been discussions between parties in the House and I believe
you would find unanimous consent that Bill S-5 be considered at
all stages today, that is second reading, committee of the whole,
report stage and third reading.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
BLUE WATER BRIDGE AUTHORITY ACT
Hon. Anne McLellan (for the Minister of Transport) moved
that Bill S-5, an act to amend the Blue Water Bridge Authority
Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred
to a committee of the whole.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to
ask for consent to share my time with the member for
Sarnia—Lambton.
The Speaker: Is it agreed that the hon. member split
his time with the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak
at second reading on the proposed legislation, an act to amend
the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act.
The proposed legislation amends the Blue Water Bridge Act of
1964 by updating the ability of the Blue Water Bridge Authority
to borrow funds.
For those members who may not know, the Blue Water Bridge
connects Point Edward, which is near Sarnia, Ontario, with Port
Huron, Michigan. It joins Ontario Highway 402 to Michigan
Highway Interstates 69 and 94 on the U.S. side.
The Blue Water Bridge is the second largest Canada-U.S. gateway
in terms of exports and the second busiest crossing for trucks.
An average of 14,000 vehicles per day cross the Blue Water Bridge
and on a busy day as many as 20,000 vehicles, including well over
6,000 trucks, may cross this international bridge.
The Blue Water Bridge is Canada's fastest growing crossing with
traffic increases of about 8% per year. The bridge is primarily
a long distance crossing. I am told that approximately 250,000
to 300,000 trucks per month from the province of Quebec alone
cross this bridge heading to the United States. Obviously this
crossing is important to many of our provinces, not just Ontario.
In 1992, 50 years after the bridge was first opened for traffic,
an international task force studying the Blue Water Bridge
crossing concluded that the existing bridge was operating in
excess of its designed capacity and that a second bridge should
be built.
On July 22, 1997, a second Blue Water Bridge span was open to
traffic. Once the new bridge was opened, the original 60 year
old bridge was temporarily closed for much needed rehabilitation.
The Blue Water Bridge Authority has owned and operated the
Canadian half of the bridge since the early 1960s. The authority
was created by the federal government by an act respecting the
international bridge over the St. Clair river known as the Blue
Water Bridge. This act was proclaimed on May 21, 1964.
The Blue Water Bridge Authority is a public body basically
independent of the crown operating at arm's length. It is not an
agent or employee of the crown and the crown is therefore not
liable for its debt. It receives no federal funding.
The governor in council appoints the directors of the authority
and the reporting mechanism is through Transport Canada.
As I previously indicated, the purpose of the amendment to the
Blue Water Bridge Act of 1964 is to update the ability of the
Blue Water Bridge Authority to borrow funds. The current act
limits the authority to borrow funds when the bond interest rate
is less than or equal to 6.5%. This restriction is not in
keeping with current practice.
Other international bridges have an established maximum
borrowing limit. The amendment proposes a maximum borrowing
limit of $125 million which would be adequate to handle its long
term debt, currently totalling approximately $60 million, and its
multiyear capital plan totalling an additional $55 million.
The Blue Water Bridge Authority is continually looking for ways
to improve its operation and to make its crossing as
efficient and as safe as possible. Its capital plan identifies
major modifications to the terminal layout to improve the flow of
traffic and to address the safety concerns identified by
independent consultants.
Without the passage of the legislation, the authority will be
unable to borrow the necessary funds to make these improvements.
The proposed legislation stipulates that all borrowing
transactions are subject to the approval of the Minister of
Finance and the Minister of Transport. The bill also reinforces
that the federal government is not liable for any borrowing by
the authority.
The authority is not for profit. Its revenues come primarily
from bridge tolls but it also has rental income from things
like the duty free shop and from broker establishments at the
crossing.
The proposed legislation to amend the Blue Water Bridge
Authority Act is important for Canada's economic viability and
competitiveness. With the Canada-U.S. trade growing at an
average annual pace of more than 10%, we cannot afford to ignore
the crucial economic role that our international border crossings
play in facilitating the movement of this trade.
1010
I hope all members will join me in giving expeditious
consideration to this important initiative. The Blue Water
Bridge Authority needs the legislation in order to continue to
operate and to maintain this important transportation link
efficiently and to make capital improvements in the most cost
effective manner possible.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I too am pleased to speak to Bill S-5 and to urge its speedy
passage.
The bill is in essence a private bill in that it affects one
operation, in this case the powers of the board of directors
consisting of four people who are the overseers or managers of
the Canadian half of the international crossing known as the Blue
Water Bridge, which is located in my riding of Sarnia—Lambton.
In 1937, after 20 years of study between the Canadian government
and American interests, agreement was reached to construct a
bridge over the St. Clair river at its narrowest juncture which
is at the base of Lake Huron in the village of Point Edward.
For close to 60 years the original structure served as the
crossing point between Canada and the United States, Ontario and
Michigan, and the communities of Sarnia and Port Huron. For
almost 60 years the first bridge served the interests of
business, family and tourism well by providing a fast and
efficient place to exit and enter Canada.
However, in 1964 parliament enacted legislation, known as the
Blue Water Bridge Act, which created a board of directors of four
people with certain powers, authority and obligations to operate
the facility. The reason for that was twofold. First, the
automobile in the post-war years resulted in a much greater
volume of traffic: business, commercial, tourism, as well as
personal use.
Second, the operations of the bridge needed to be
self-sustaining and fulfil the expectations of the local,
regional as well as national interests. With the passage in 1964
of the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act, control over operations
was vested in the authority subject to certain provisions in
terms of reporting to Transport Canada.
The legislation has served us well locally and nationally. The
authority under the 1964 legislation provided the buildings for
Canada customs, immigration and agriculture Canada free of
charge. This was part of the 1964 act and continues and will
continue to be the case.
Over the period from 1964 to 1992, the volume of traffic grew.
This was a three lane bridge located some 50 minutes from
Detroit. As both Canada and the U.S. became greater trading
partners, as the method of moving goods shifted toward trucks and
as the 400 series highways blossomed in Ontario and their
interstate counterparts were built in the U.S., something quite
startling happened.
Ontario Highway 402 was built in the mid-seventies connecting
the Blue Water Bridge to Highway 401 some 100 kilometres away.
On the American side, Interstate Highways 94 and 69 connected the
bridge to Detroit and Chicago. As trade between our countries
blossomed and traffic volume skyrocketed from a few trucks daily
in 1938 to well over 7,000 18-wheelers daily today, the Blue
Water Bridge is now the second busiest land commercial crossing
on the Canada—U.S. border.
In 1992 the Blue Water Bridge Authority, responding to both
local and national needs, conducted a feasibility study in
concert with its American counterpart operators, the Michigan
Department of Transport, and embarked on a bridge twinning
project. On July 12, 1997, that second parallel Blue Water
Bridge, the new one, was officially opened: a new structure
abutting and running parallel to the 1938 structure. The bridge
now offered six lanes to facilitate the crossing of goods and
people. After the opening of the new span, a commitment of more
than $75 million by the Blue Water Bridge Authority, the original
span was closed to be re-decked and refurbished, a further
commitment of about $25 million.
Since 1997 the volume of truck traffic has continued to grow
somewhere in the neighbourhood of 12% per annum. The opening of
a casino abutting the Canadian plaza of the bridge, literally
almost under the bridge, and the favourable position of the
Canadian dollar vis-à-vis U.S. residents, has resulted in an
explosion of traffic. Some 20,000 vehicles are crossing daily
and more than 1.6 million annually.
Each and every month the revenues of the bridge authority have
increased, despite the talk that there is a slowdown in the
economy.
1015
This means a number of things, reflected in Bill S-5. The
bridge authority, through studies commissioned by it, has
identified further capital projects to disentangle truck traffic
from regular motor vehicle traffic. It must, for safety reasons
and to facilitate the just in time delivery of goods, make major
changes to its plaza at the base of the bridge. Without the
passage of this legislation, Bill S-5, the Blue Water Bridge
Authority will be unable to borrow the necessary funds to make
these improvements as well as handle its long term debt load and
multi-year capital plan.
The 1964 act has worked for 37 years, but in this era of
increased trade and tourism this new legislation will allow the
Blue Water Bridge Authority to continue to meet our national,
regional and local interests. It is a sign and a symptom of
success.
In closing I would like to thank the bridge authority and its
chair, Mr. Doug Keddy, and the mayor of the village of Point
Edward, Dick Kirkland, who have in recent years worked so
diligently to ensure the success of this facility. As well, in
anticipation I would like to thank the members of the House for
their support in the adoption of this bill.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to rise today to
address at second reading Bill S-5, which seeks to amend the Blue
Water Bridge Authority Act.
Although most Canadians have probably not even heard of the Blue
Water bridges, the parallel spans connecting Port Huron, Michigan
to Sarnia, Ontario, we have all felt the effects of their
presence. As the second busiest commercial vehicle corridor
between Canada and the United States, the Blue Water bridges are
an integral part of the Canadian economy, providing us with
access not only to the U.S. market but to Mexico as well.
The modernization of this act would give the Blue Water Bridge
Authority the means and capability of conducting its business
affairs in a manner similar to that of any other private
corporation in Canada. As a result of these changes, the
authority will be able to borrow money to invest in
infrastructure improvements on an as needed basis up to a limit
of $125 million. The act will also ensure that the borrowing
activities are overseen by the Minister of Finance and the
Minister of Transportation.
While I have some reservations about placing control for
approval of borrowing in the hands of only two members of the
House, I am hopeful that this arrangement may actually encourage
some dialogue between the ministers on infrastructure investment
for the rest of Canada's transportation system.
I am pleased to see the Minister of Transport in the House
today. Earlier this week Canadians heard the minister defend his
inaction on highways by once again reiterating that he could not
possibly spend money on roads since they are a provincial
responsibility.
If that is the case, then the question is this: why is the
federal government collecting taxes that clearly belong to the
party responsible for the roads, namely the provinces? It seems
simple. If the government will not take responsibility for the
roads then it should stop taking the money.
Fortunately we also had the Minister of Finance around to try to
defend the paltry $600 million that the government intends to
distribute to the provinces for road improvements over the next
four years. He reminded us of all the wonderful things that the
remaining $4 billion, yes, $4 billion, of fuel tax buys us.
Given the state of our highways it is unconscionable that the
finance minister would defend spending 95% of fuel tax revenues
on projects other than roads. As the Blue Water Bridge Authority
has proven over the past 37 years, reinvesting revenues from
operations means that we can afford to maintain infrastructure to
impeccable standards.
Imagine for a moment that an American tourist is heading for a
vacation in Canada. The American side of the journey is on
interstate highways that receive funding to the tune of 95% of
all fuel taxes collected by the state. The American tourist gets
to the Blue Water Bridge, maintained fully by the revenue it
generates, and enjoys a very pleasant crossing.
Then the American tourist arrives in Canada and continues the
trip on highways that receive funding of less than 5% of total
fuel tax revenues. The pathetic condition of our highways has
the American checking his map furiously to make sure that he did
not somehow make a wrong turn and is actually heading to Mexico.
1020
I mention Mexico again because it brings up yet another
compelling reason for renewed investment in our highway
infrastructure, and that is trade corridors. The government has
gone to great lengths to ensure that we have free trade with
Mexico, yet it has spent no time considering how we will get
there.
Access to and from the growing Mexican economy involves more
than ensuring that we have enough bridges to the United States.
Importers and exporters need to have confidence that the Canadian
government is committed to ensuring that our transportation
infrastructure will exist long enough for trading relations to
fully develop.
We need to invest in developing and maintaining trade corridors
to the south and national highways to the east and west to
sustain access to the infrastructure such as the Blue Water
bridges.
In conclusion, I am pleased to confirm that the Canadian
Alliance supports the speedy passage today of all stages of
amendments to the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act, Bill S-5, with
the hope and the proviso that it may encourage further
improvements to our national transportation network.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to say a word or two on Bill S-5 simply to get on the
record, because it is not a very controversial piece of
legislation. It is quite mundane, as a matter of fact, and I
want to say on behalf of our party that we support the bill.
The bill will simply update the borrowing rules that apply to
the Blue Water Bridge Authority. The current and complex rules
for borrowing money are replaced by a requirement that the
Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport approve the
authority's borrowing. A cap of $125 million is placed on all
borrowing by the authority and the government will not be
responsible for repayment of the authority's debt, so there no
reason why anyone would not support the bill.
The bridges are operated by the Blue Water Bridge Authority,
which includes Canadian and U.S. representatives. The authority
operates at arm's length from government and receives no
appropriations. It is not an agent of the crown and the
government assumes no responsibility for debt incurred by the
authority. As I said a moment ago, there is no reason not to
support and approve the appropriations outlined in the bill.
The Canadian law governing the authority's ability to borrow
money sets out a complex and antiquated set of rules and
restrictions such as the maximum rate of interest to be paid, the
maximum length of time to maturity for bonds issued in the
authority's name, and the maximum rate to be paid on bonds
redeemed early by the authority.
The borrowing authority sought under the bill is about $125
million. It is more than double the current outstanding debt of
$60 million. The government says that is adequate to handle
planned multi-year capital spending of $55 million. That is all
we have to say on the bill. We support it.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in
committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and
passed)
* * *
1025
MARINE LIABILITY ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-2, an act
respecting marine liability, and to validate certain by-laws and
regulations, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: There are two motions in amendment
standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill S-2, an
act respecting marine liability, and to validate certain by-laws
and regulations.
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate and voted on as
follows. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 1 obviates the
necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 2. On the
other hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 1 necessitates the
question being put on Motion No. 2.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance) moved:
That Bill S-2, in Clause 39, be amended by replacing lines 35 to 38 on
page 14 with the following:
“39. The Governor in Council shall make regulations by
January 1, 2003, requiring insurance or evidence of
financial security be maintained to cover liability under
this Part.”
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP) moved:
That Bill S-2, in Clause 39, be amended by replacing lines 35 to
38 on page 14 with the following:
“39. (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations
requiring insurance or other financial security to be
maintained to cover liability to passengers under this
Part.
(2) Until regulations are made under subsection (1),
vessel operators who do not have insurance or other
financial security to cover liability to passengers must
clearly and visibly post this fact in the appropriate
location so that passengers, or potential passengers, are
made aware of such absence of insurance.”
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to
speak in debate to Bill S-2 and specifically to both motions put
forward to amend clause 39.
It would perhaps be helpful if I run through the chronological
order of how this amendment came about. We submitted the
amendment to clause 39 in Bill S-2, the Marine Liability Act, to
the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations
during clause by clause consideration of the bill.
1030
The amendment relates to the establishment of a date by which
the government would establish regulations for compulsory
insurance for commercial passenger vessels. These are vessels
that are making a business of carrying people. It would bring
them in line with all other modes of transportation. Commercial
shipping is the only area which does not have compulsory
insurance requirements.
The bill establishes the shipowner's liability for passengers
but does not require them to prove that they have the financial
means to pay any potential injured passengers.
The committee heard contradictory testimony from departmental
officials. On one hand they stated that it could not be done
without a detailed examination of the impact on the insurance
industry. On the other hand marine insurance professionals
stated that compulsory insurance was already part of their
business and the industry could respond immediately to comply
with the requirement.
During clause by clause analysis there was considerable debate
on the amendment to clause 39. All four opposition parties were
united in their support for the amendment that I had drafted and
introduced. The amendment required the government to make
insurance compulsory by January 1, 2002, a date chosen to allow
the government the time it stated was required to implement an
adequate administration scheme.
Liberal members of the committee agreed that the bill without
compulsory insurance would not accomplish the objective of
protecting passengers travelling by ship. Assurances were given
by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport that
the government would act on a commitment. It shall make
regulations as soon as it is able. That is really what the
amendment is all about, because it says it shall in the future
perhaps. However the government was not prepared to amend the
bill at that time. I made an offer to extend the implementation
date by a full year and was summarily dismissed.
It became clear in committee that despite acknowledging that the
bill was deficient with respect to the compulsory insurance
provisions, Liberal members were supporting the bill as drafted
on a purely partisan basis. They were concerned that any
amendment would require the bill to return to the Senate and thus
delay royal assent. It was pointed out that the bill passed
through the Senate in a single day. We all know that Bill S-2
originated in the Senate. Liberal members agreed that any delay
would not be significant.
Approval of deficient legislation on partisan grounds or on the
basis that it would require the bill to follow its prescribed
course to the Senate constitutes special circumstances. That is
why the amendment we are discussing today was allowed to stand at
report stage as well as in committee. That is why I have amended
our motion to reflect the compromise offered by the four
opposition parties in committee. It now reads:
The Governor in Council shall make regulations by January 1,
2003, requiring insurance or evidence of financial security be
maintained to cover liability under this Part.
The amendment is in addition to those put forward by my hon.
colleagues in the New Democratic Party. Although they support
the motion I put forward in committee, and I believe they will
support it in the House, once it is defeated we need to have a
fallback position. We need to ensure that passengers travelling
on commercial vessels have some assurance they are protected, and
if they are not protected that they are made aware of that.
I support the intent of Motion No. 2. I believe very strongly
there is no legitimate reason, and there were no compelling
reasons presented in committee, why commercial shipping vessels
are not required to have compulsory insurance to protect
passengers who are travelling by boat.
1035
Failing that and if Motion No. 1 is defeated, the Canadian
Alliance would support Motion No. 2 because it would provide some
protection. If there is a requirement that a visible sign or
some other form of communication has to be posted by shipowners,
a warning sign, passengers would know the particular vessel does
not have an adequate insurance policy or the financial means in
the event the boat were to sink or some other mishap befalls
passengers. They would not have reasonable assurance that their
injuries or the injuries of their loved ones would be covered.
I am speaking in favour of my motion which would require
compulsory insurance by January 1, 2003, so that all passengers
travelling in Canada on water vessels would have the assurance
and be well aware that all shipping companies in the business of
transporting people have adequate insurance to protect them.
It would be similar to what airlines, bus companies and other
modes of transportation have. They are required to have third
party liability insurance to make sure passengers are adequately
covered. Passengers boarding those forms of transportation have
that assurance, yet we do not see the same requirement of
shipowners. I speak in favour of Motion No. 1 for those reasons.
If Motion No. 1 is defeated, our party would support Motion No.
2 as a fallback position so that passengers understand when they
board a particular vessel which does not have adequate insurance
coverage they are accepting some personal risk with their
decision.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to
address the amendment of thee hon. member for Prince
George—Peace River. My comments could be taken as applying to
the amendment of the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair.
These motions seek to amend clause 39 of Bill S-2 by putting an
obligation on the governor in council to make regulations
requiring shipowners to provide evidence of insurance or other
financial security covering their liability to passengers under
part 4 of the bill.
During the hearings held by the Standing Committee on Transport
and Government Operations concerns were raised regarding the
absence of compulsory insurance provisions in the bill. Reference
was made to systems of compulsory insurance in respect of
passengers in other modes of transport and to those currently in
place in the United States.
I would like to stress that the introduction of a passenger
liability regime in Canadian law is the first and essential step
for the introduction of compulsory insurance for passenger ships.
Bill S-2 makes a quantum leap toward this objective as it
establishes for the first time in Canadian law the liability of
the shipowner for loss of life or personal injury to passengers.
The bill provides specific levels of compensation to which each
passenger would be entitled in the event of an accident.
Unlike other modes of transportation there continues to be no
international agreement mandating insurance coverage for
passenger ships. The International Maritime Organization is
currently working on a compulsory insurance regime for passengers
and Bill S-2 recognizes this in clause 39.
Clause 39 provides for governor in council authority to adopt
regulations on compulsory insurance and thus enables Canada to
adhere to a uniform regime supported by international insurance
markets.
1040
However Canada can act on clause 39 as soon as the bill is
passed and unilaterally introduce a regime of compulsory
insurance for all ships operating in Canadian waters.
There are some provisions in the United States on compulsory
insurance, but its system does not provide the benefits that Bill
S-2 is trying to achieve. The U.S. compulsory insurance scheme
is not comprehensive as it only deals with ships that have
overnight accommodation for 50 or more passengers. In addition,
the amount of compensation provided depends on the capacity of
the ship which generates different treatments of passengers.
For example, in respect of ships with overnight accommodation
capacity of between 50 and 500, the U.S. regime requires
insurance of $20,000 U.S. per passenger accommodation. This
amount decreases with higher capacity ships so that a ship with a
capacity of 2,000 the required insurance is only $12,500 U.S. per
passenger accommodation.
In addition to these variations in the treatment of passengers,
all types of day trip ferries, sightseeing ships, tour boats, et
cetera, are not covered by the compulsory insurance scheme of the
U.S.
The Canadian regime provides compensation of $350,000 per
passenger. Large shipowners, particularly in the coastal ferry
and cruise ship markets, are generally well insured with
established insurers and have full coverage against liability as
set out in the bill. Hence these shipowners should have no
difficulty to obtain and maintain adequate insurance.
Similarly the vast majority of small shipowners and operators
should not encounter any problems in the Canadian insurance
market to secure insurance against the obligations under Bill
S-2.
I am also aware that as the insurers would not be compelled to
insure every ship, it is possible that some operators,
particularly in the whale watching or white water rafting market,
may find their premiums substantially increased. Under the new
liability regime they may be considered uninsurable and forced
out of business. Others may lose some competitive advantage
against U.S. operators who are not required to have insurance.
As in the case of compulsory insurance and in the current
insurance regime for oil pollution, the establishment of
compulsory insurance for passenger ships may require the
establishment of some safety net for claims arising from
uninsured ships or from the failure of the insurers to meet their
obligations. Thus a necessary part of any compulsory insurance
regime would be the responsibility of the government to approve
insurers as is currently done under the oil pollution regime.
I believe that shipowners would voluntarily act responsibly. The
government would act as soon as possible following the passage of
the bill on the development of appropriate regulations to give
effect to clause 39. In fact government testimony in committee
repeated that commitment.
This would ensure that all shipowners obtain and provide
evidence of adequate insurance against their liability to
passengers under part 4. The government's serious commitment to
this objective was already demonstrated in our efforts in the
field of oil pollution.
In part 6 of the bill there is a regime of liability for oil
pollution damage caused by oil tankers. The regime includes
provisions on compulsory insurance that shipowners must have
before they are permitted to navigate in Canadian waters. The
oil pollution regime is based on international conventions which
Canada adopted in 1999. As a result, Canadian interests such as
our environment are protected by a well established regime that
has the full co-operation of international insurance markets.
This co-operation was essential since our domestic insurance
markets do not have the capacity to provide coverage against the
levels of liability for oil pollution established in the
international convention. This example of our dedication to
protect Canadians in the marine transportation field speaks for
itself. While there is no equivalent international agreement on
compulsory insurance for passenger ships, this would not prevent
Canada from introducing such a regime at the national level.
In this instance, the emphasis would be primarily on smaller
vessels which to a large degree can be insured in the domestic
insurance market as was reported by some of the industry
witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport
and Government Operations. We would take their advice and that
of others potentially affected by the compulsory insurance system
to make sure that we have examined every aspect of it and that we
have put together a viable and workable regime.
1045
Our goal is to ensure, first, that we have taken into account
all interests involved and, second, that we have at the end a
compulsory insurance system which is effective in its impact and
efficient in its application.
As I have mentioned, the bill takes a giant step forward in
addressing passenger ship liability and provides for an eventual
solution to the concern raised by the opposition member. However,
acting on clause 39 at this stage would be premature. The
government will therefore not support either of the two proposed
amendments.
The amendments could be detrimental to small passenger ship
operators or unfair to the insurance industry. Measures will be
taken as soon as the bill is passed to address this very
important aspect of it. Given all that has been said, I
reiterate that we will not be supporting the motion.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my colleague from Churchill is on the committee reviewing the
bill. When I became aware of the legislation it drew to mind an
incident that took place in Lake Huron about a year ago. As a
parent it is one of those scary nightmares we all have.
Students from one of the local high schools were out on a ferry
on Lake Huron. There was a sudden storm, the ferry sank and two
lives were lost. Two of the students drowned. It subsequently
was learned that the ferry had no insurance. As a result the
parents must not only cope with the tragic loss of their child.
They must also deal with the financial consequences such as
funeral expenses, et cetera, with no ability to look to the ferry
operator for compensation.
The NDP is quite prepared to support the first motion before the
House today because we believe insurance is the answer. I know
from my experience in the civil litigation field that the second
motion, my motion, is a far distant second preference. Putting
up notices would not be nearly as effective as compulsory
insurance in dealing with the issue.
The advantage of compulsory insurance is that it is not only
available for parties who have suffered injury, death or other
losses. It also acts as a check on the practices of the
operators of the industry or service. If their practices are not
conducted in a proper and safe fashion the insurance industry
acts as an enforcement mechanism. It is therefore far preferable
to have insurance than to rely simply on putting up notices.
If the government is absolute in its position that it will not
make insurance compulsory then notices may still have some
effect. If notices had been posted that the Lake Huron ferry had
no insurance then the school that organized the day trip, being
concerned for the safety of its charges, may not have used it.
There is not much more I can say. The comments of my Alliance
colleague summarize the issue. I simply add these points and ask
the government to rethink its position and move to compulsory
insurance. If not, it should consider the fallback position of
making it compulsory to post notices.
1050
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is difficult
to be against a bill making shipowners liable.
The amendments to the act strike me as logical. Making
shipowners liable and giving passengers and owners of luggage an
opportunity to recover their belongings and sue a shipowner
after an incident is, in my opinion, extremely worthwhile.
However, it is not a question of making shipowners liable but of
being able to give them the tools to assume that liability.
In clause 39, when it says that the government may require
insurance, the way we see this is that by giving them
responsibilities, the government must require shipowners to be
responsible financially by having liability insurance.
I remember, in the days before car insurance was required in
Quebec, if we draw a comparison, people were sued following an
accident because they were responsible for the accident, but not
financially responsible. I can remember defending families, for
example, who had lost everything as the result of an accident,
because the person who was responsible was unable to assume his
responsibilities.
The Automobile Insurance Act was passed, forcing owners of
cars, trucks and any other road vehicles to carry the necessary
insurance.
In this regard, when the government says it
will see that shipowners get insurance once the bill is passed,
that is too late. We have to fix this situation now, while we
have the opportunity to do so, and we strongly support the
motion that vessel operators be required to get liability
insurance immediately.
Some Department of Transport officials have said that the
industry was not ready right now to take on such a risk. However
members of the insurance industry assure us of the contrary.
They say they are perfectly prepared to take such risks.
As for liability with respect to pollution, this is a topic of
particular interest to me.
It is true that we must do everything possible to force
shipowners to respect the waters they navigate on, among others
the St. Lawrence. There are regular spills, perhaps not major
ones, but there is a certain laxness as far as the environment
is concerned.
I applaud this bill, which will require shipowners to be more
responsible for the waters of the St. Lawrence, as well as to
enable those who have sustained damages, whether fishers,
farmers, marine algae producers or anyone sustaining damages as
the result of an oil spill for instance, to sue shipowners in
order to be compensated for the losses incurred. Plant workers
are also entitled to do the same.
1055
I would caution the government against a temptation that seems
to have existed for a number of years. The St. Lawrence pilots
and the specialized pilots, all associations of pilots with the
responsibility of taking control of a ship and guiding it
through the St. Lawrence to the Lakehead, tell us that
attempts are being made, or at the very least
pressures, to exclude them from this work some day.
I must say that we owe the condition in which the St. Lawrence
is today, claims of its pollution notwithstanding, to the
quality of the St. Lawrence pilots.
Without the skill and calibre of these pilots, even their
interest, and because of the fact that St. Lawrence River pilots
know the river like the back of their hand—they know it so well
they avoid the reefs, as is true as well in the Great Lakes—there
would be major incidents.
I warn the government to avoid the temptation to take away
pilots' responsibility for guiding ships to the Great Lakes.
The pilots are afraid for their status as St. Lawrence pilots,
and I hope this fear is unjustified. For 30 years,
they have felt there has been a temptation to take this
responsibility away from them.
I am saying that, on the contrary, they must be assured that
responsibility for safe navigation on the St. Lawrence and the
Great Lakes is theirs. Given their calibre and skill, I think
they require assurance that they will continue to do this work.
In short, we agree with most of the conclusions of this report
and everything relating to the protection of the environment and
the individual. Once again, I ask the government to act on its
intention and ensure there is an obligation for shipowners to
carry insurance in keeping with their responsibilities.
I will add one other small point, which I do not find here, and
that is that it seems to me there should be a requirement to
inspect vessels moving from the sea into the Gulf of St.
Lawrence.
This would avoid damage caused by aging vessels, which could
pollute the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, in the event of an
incident.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one
year ago the CIHR, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research,
officially opened for business. The result has been a banner
year for health research.
Under the guidance of renowned geneticist Alan Bernstein, the 13
virtual institutes were named last July. These bring together
spectra of research including basic biomedical, clinical science,
health systems and services, and population health.
Scientists who work in hospitals, universities and research
centres from coast to coast to coast are now linked through this
network of institutes. In December directors were appointed to
guide the institutes. This year 218 volunteers were selected
from across Canada to serve on its advisory boards, creating a
two way flow of information between researchers and communities.
Results of the CIHR's first funding competition were announced
in April, ensuring that our best and brightest scientists are
performing the best health research in Canada. The virtual dream
has become a reality.
I am proud to be a member of a government that had the foresight
to create an organization like CIHR and which committed in the
Speech from the Throne to providing it with major increases in
funding. By investing in research today all Canadians will
benefit tomorrow.
* * *
1100
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, backbench government and
opposition MPs have few legislative tools at our disposal to
raise issues of private or local concern here on the national
stage.
One legislative mechanism we do have is the ability to draft
private members' bills and motions to be drawn by a lottery and
brought to the House.
By pure luck, my first ever private member's bill, to take the
GST off the repairs of leaky condos in British Columbia, was
drawn.
Unfortunately my one legislative avenue to have this issue of
dominant importance in my constituency brought to the House for a
vote will not happen. Like dozens of other private members'
bills and motions, it will see the light of day in this House for
60 short minutes and die on the order paper.
All private members' bills and motions should be deemed
automatically votable unless and only if the bill's sponsor deems
it otherwise. There are no credible arguments for this to not be
the case.
Each and every one of our constituents, the 30 million Canadians
who we collectively represent, deserves an open and democratic
system that respects their concerns first and treats those
concerns with respect. Anything short of this is a defamation of
this place and of the nature of true democracy that all Canadians
deserve.
* * *
BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this Sunday Canadians will remember and salute those who lost
their lives in the Battle of the Atlantic.
Ceremonies will take place across the country, including at the
National War Memorial, where more than 500 veterans and members
of the Canadian forces will be in attendance.
The Battle of the Atlantic took place from September 1939 to the
end of the second world war in 1945. It pitted the naval forces
of the allies, including the Royal Canadian Navy, against the
notorious German U-boats. The battle swung the tide of the war
in favour of the allies.
Today we remember all those who lost their lives and we salute
the veterans. We also pay tribute to all those men and women who
are currently serving in our Canadian armed forces.
* * *
[Translation]
COMPOSTING WEEK
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week
was composting week. The activities that took place definitely
helped Canadians develop an awareness of the benefits of
composting for our environment.
Composting is an excellent way to recycle. We can compost about
50% of the waste that we produce. It is a good way to reduce the
amount of waste sent to landfill sites. Composting is also an
excellent fertilizer that helps improve soil texture and
fertility.
Composting is being used increasingly by Canadians. I invite
them to continue to do so, because it is one of many ways to
protect our environment.
* * *
[English]
ATLANTIC JOURNALISM AWARDS
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to honour the hard work and dedication of five
journalists from CBC in Charlottetown.
Last week they each received Atlantic Journalism Awards for
their outstanding achievements in their profession.
Roger Younker was the unanimous choice of the judges for a
special journalistic achievement award honouring Roger's many
years as host of our evening television news program CBC
Compass, a show that is rarely missed by any Islander.
Sally Pitt, a CBC television reporter, received a gold award for
her report concerning a local couple's struggle with Alzheimer's.
Sheila Taylor, a CBC radio reporter, along with her producer,
Donna Allen, also won a gold award for their story involving a
dispute among 54 P.E.I. shell fishers and Revenue Canada.
John Jeffery, one of Atlantic Canada's better known television
reporters, received a silver award for his coverage of our Prime
Minister's tour while in Prince Edward Island last summer.
On behalf of all residents of Prince Edward Island, I am proud
to pay tribute to those five journalists. Thanks to their
commitment and dedication, the history and culture of our
province continues to be recorded.
* * *
CANADIAN AIRLINES EMPLOYEES
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, while Air Canada celebrates the
takeover of yet another competitor, Roots Air, the former
employees of Canadian Airlines are still waiting for Air Canada
to live up to its promise of fair and equitable treatment.
Several weeks ago the pilots of Canadian Airlines learned that
as a result of the Mitchnick award their seniority would be
determined by a ratio formula that heavily favoured Air Canada
pilots. In some cases 20 years of experience and seniority was
lost.
For these professionals seniority is not about money. It
affects every aspect of their lives, from the type of aircraft
and which routes they fly, their position on the aircraft and
subsequent promotions, to pensions, vacation and even the
location of their home base.
1105
The Minister of Transport promised Canadian Airlines employees
that they would be treated fairly and it is time he lived up to
that commitment.
I would call on the Minister of Transport and the Minister of
Labour to intervene and ensure that the award is amended to
reflect the years of experience and dedication of Canadian
airline pilots.
This is a merger without precedent. If this decision is allowed
to stand, it will only lead to continued disharmony.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUTH OUTLOOKS
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Canada just launched another career planning tool
for youth called Youth Outlooks and designed to meet the needs
of young people aged 15 to 24.
This tool is a kit that contains information products on the
labour market, qualifications, standards, employment and wages.
Young people will be able to use this information to make better
educational and career choices.
The future of our young people is a priority of the Government
of Canada. Since it took office, the government has taken a
number of measures to help young people gain the skills and
experience they need to enter the labour market.
I invite young people to use this tool, in addition to all the
other ones put at their disposal under the youth employment
strategy.
* * *
CHEESE IMPORTS
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in response to
our questions concerning the federal government's issue of
special permits to import cheese sticks and the risk this
represents to our industry, the Minister for International Trade
has made light of the situation and said any old thing.
Contrary to what the minister has said, there is no shortage of
the product manufactured here. We have a surplus. Contrary to
what he has said, we do not have to issue these permits in
connection with our international obligations, because we are
well beyond them.
One thing is true, however, because of his incompetence, the
Minister for International Trade is causing one of Quebec's
largest industries to lose revenues, something it could avoid if
the minister were to stop being smug and believing that he alone
knows the truth of the matter.
* * *
[English]
MENTAL HEALTH WEEK
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House and all
Canadians that the week of May 7 to 13 marks the 50th anniversary
of Mental Health Week in Canada.
[Translation]
In the past 50 years, the focus has been on informing the public
on the issues of mental health and mental illness.
A survey in 1997, conducted for the Canadian Mental Health
Association, revealed that 82% of Canadians consider it very
important to maintain their mental health.
[English]
Today mental health is described by many as a top priority and
it has been recognized as such by the government in the Speech
from the Throne.
[Translation]
Please join with me in wishing all those working in the field of
mental health a successful week.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we have been woefully deprived of initiative from the
Minister of Justice.
As the country's chief attorney general and legal counsel, it is
her duty to ensure that the government's actions are above board
and compliant with laws and policies. She was noticeably quiet
on the Shawinigan affair.
She has failed to bring forth effective youth criminal justice
legislation. She has merely off-loaded the problem on to the
provinces. It is complicated and riddled with loopholes.
The minister will be responsible for at least doubling law
faculties with the increased demand for lawyers to handle all the
legal arguments she will cause in our courts. All Canadians will
get is new legislation together with a whole host of new problems
and difficulties.
The minister was virtually invisible when we discussed the need
for a national sex offender registry. It is her department that
would devise the scheme, but she has hidden behind the solicitor
general, who continues to stick his head in the sand and maintain
that CPIC will do the job. How ridiculous.
Then there is the child custody issue. In spite of an extensive
subcommittee review and report, she seems afraid to do anything.
She wants to study it more.
Perhaps it is time for the minister to move on.
* * *
OSLO ACCORDS
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
approaching the seventh anniversary of the Oslo accords, the
historic Israeli-Palestinian agreement that heralded the hope of
an end to war, and the beginning of a process that would culminate
in an enduring peace.
Seven to eight years later, many Palestinians and Israelis see
the Oslo accords as a failure or worse and pronounce them dead
and buried. Accordingly, it is important that we reaffirm the
basic principles, pillars of these accords, which are no less
valid today and even more compelling than ever before.
1110
These include: mutual respect for, and acknowledgement of, the
legitimacy of the Jewish and Palestinian peoples' right to
self-determination; renunciation of all acts of terrorism and
violence; direct negotiations in good faith to resolve all
outstanding issues between the parties; and, respect for human
rights, the rule of law and the general principles of law
recognized by the community of nations.
* * *
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
there are growing concerns among the peaceful demonstrators who
attended the Quebec summit and among area residents about what
exactly people were exposed to and what the long term effects
will be.
We are now told by the security forces that 5,148 canisters were
released that weekend. The use of these chemicals was not
localized to the targets. In fact, the effects and residue were
evident for several kilometres from the site of the spraying.
Area residents and their children were all exposed to whatever
the police were spraying. Many rumours and questions persist
about what exactly was used.
We are calling now on the government to release to the public
the exact chemical composition of all chemical agents used that
weekend.
* * *
[Translation]
LUMBER
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
termination of the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement is
likely to result in considerable job losses, particularly if the
Americans follow through with their threats to, among other
things, slap a countervailing duty on our exports ranging from
44% to 100%.
These measures could have a devastating effect on entire
regions, such as the lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé, which
account for 22% of Quebec workers in this sector: 3,000 in mills
and 2,000 in the woods.
This threat over Quebec industry is both real and unjust. The
federal government has a responsibility to put a set of measures
in place to alleviate the effects of the present and potential
crisis, starting specifically with more flexible employment
insurance and the implementation of special tax measures for the
resource regions.
This is not just a matter of defending our position in this
matter against the Americans; thought must also be given to
helping the industry and its workers, who are greatly in need of
such help.
* * *
[English]
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WEEK
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. members of the House
the fact that today marks the inauguration of Canada's first
Information Technology Week, a national celebration of Canadian
skills and achievements in information and communications
technology.
The week is organized by Industry Canada in collaboration with
the Information Technology Association of Canada. The week will
run for 10 days, from May 4 to May 13.
Canadians from all over our country are invited to participate
in the following: technology conferences; open houses; award
ceremonies for local IT heroes; IT seminars for seniors; and IT
workshops for young men and women and Canadians of all ages.
Business and IT presentations will take place, including some in
regard to careers in IT. Online quizzes and many more activities
are planned.
This is just one way of saying that Canada is indeed at the
forefront of information technology.
* * *
ATLANTIC CANADA
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, capping the equalization program and ignoring the
concerns of Atlantic Canadian provincial ministers will result in
two different Canadas, those parts of the country that can afford
services and others that cannot.
As the Liberal government sits on a $17 billion surplus, their
grinch-like attitude toward less prosperous provinces will result
in the decline of health care, education and roadways in Atlantic
Canada.
Nova Scotia premier John Hamm has continued his campaign for
fairness to gain more control of the province's offshore oil and
natural gas reserves and to move the province away from being an
equalization recipient.
The Minister of Industry made election promises to change the
equalization system, but just like Nova Scotia's equalization,
the minister's promises have been clawed back.
The current equalization system can actually inhibit growth in
the recipient provinces.
The PC Party calls upon the government to introduce a five year
break on the reduction of equalization benefits, providing
provinces with an opportunity to utilize these new sources of
revenue to reduce dependency and create a more favourable
business environment with higher levels of growth.
* * *
ATLANTIC TECHNOLOGY CENTRE
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week is Canada's Information Technology Week. The purpose of
Information Technology Week is the celebration of achievements in
information and communications technology.
It is vital in today's economy to provide opportunities for the
development of skills for a knowledge based economy and to
provide the infrastructure to attract information technology
investment.
I am pleased to announce that with partial funding from federal
programs, construction will begin this spring on the Atlantic
Technology Centre in Charlottetown.
1115
This new centre will house office space, an information
technology education and training academy, a business incubator,
research labs, multimedia facilities, smart boardrooms and an
exhibition area. It is an innovative new approach that will
attract investment and encourage growth in the emerging
information technology sector.
The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canada
remains a leader in information technology.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the opportunity for the government to aggressively
attack European Union and United States agricultural subsidy
policies has never been better. The Bush administration will
soon be bringing forward its new farm bill. The Americans have
indicated a willingness to continue the present level of market
distorting support.
The European Union is also facing a number of issues. The EU
spends half its total annual budget, $50 billion, on farm
support. It is under pressure from within to reduce this amount.
The proposed enlargement of the EU will put additional pressures
on its budgets. The WTO peace clause expires at the end of 2003
and critical elections in Europe will be over by then as well.
Worldwide a billion dollars is spent everyday on some form of
agricultural support. It is imperative that the government act
now to pressure the European Union and the United States to stop
subsidies that continue to critically harm Canadian producers.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the economic news from the U.S. is not all that great this month.
I see record layoffs. I see employment has fallen. In fact
growth expectations are down.
Canada could well be right behind. In the upcoming economic
statement will we find new, and I stress the word new, tax cuts
and cuts to job killing red tape?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government and the Minister
of Finance have always said that we will do the right thing at
the right time. We cut taxes by $100 billion last fall. That is
working its way through the economy. The minister is monitoring
the situation. Of course we are concerned.
We are getting mixed messages, but I should point out that both
the OECD and the IMF expect Canada's economy to grow 2.3% this
year compared with 4.7% last year. At the same time the OECD and
the IMF know that the finance minister's tax cut strategy has
been well timed to provide further strength to the economy.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the parliamentary secretary missed that right at the end
of those comments he said that these guys were likely to spend
too much and that could make a mess of the whole situation.
This is what my constituents are saying to me. They are saying
that they are losing jobs. They are saying they are having
trouble looking to their financial future. Will we see new tax
cuts in the upcoming economic statement?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the tax cuts
are the largest in Canadian history. Combined with provincial
tax cuts, it is approximating 2% of GDP and most economists agree
that this is hugely stimulating.
The finance minister will be meeting with Canada's leading
economists in the very near term. After that he will be
presenting an economic and fiscal update to the finance
committee.
Of course we are concerned about Canadians who might be losing
jobs. I should point out that by combining provincial tax cuts
with the tax cuts that are in place, personal disposable income
will increase 5.6%.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, earlier this week a leading expert in Canada on
competitiveness, John Porter, said that Canada was sliding. That
is a shame. I think it is because of the fiscal policies of the
government, but one reason for that is job killing red tape.
It is easier to cross the border to work in the U.S. than it is
to cross provincial boundaries and find a job. Will we see an
end to job killing red tape in the upcoming economic statement?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have read the report as well
and the member opposite is very selective in his quotes. In fact
what John Porter said was that Canada's positioning on
macroeconomic policy had shown tremendous progress on the
macroeconomic front.
What he did say was that at the microeconomic level, which
includes local governments, provincial governments and
businesses, we need to have smarter business strategies. We need
to take advantage of the strong economic position in Canada.
We have low unemployment. We have low inflation. We have low
interest rates. We have eliminated the deficit. We are paying
down debts and we are cutting taxes.
1120
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, paying down the debt with budget
leftovers is no plan at all. Taxpayers need more assurance than
the whim of the finance minister that the debt will be repaid.
After all, debt represents nothing more than future taxes on our
children.
When will the government commit to following the lead of the
provinces of Alberta and Ontario and putting in place a
legislated repayment plan of the debt so that Canadians will have
a guarantee in law that our debt will be repaid?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is very characteristic of
the party opposite. It wants its cake and to eat it too. It
wants investments in Chalk River and it wants to pay down the
debt.
The government is paying down the debt. In fact we have
exceeded the targets that were set by the Alliance Party. We are
paying down debts faster than any G-7 country, and we will
continue to do so.
The member opposite did not listen to the finance minister last
year when he said that every fall he would proactively decide
whether we would pay down the debt. We will have paid down more
than $30 billion by the end of this fiscal year.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government could learn from the
provinces. It was our leader, as the finance minister of
Alberta, who changed the debt repayment legislation to raise the
bar, to increase the debt repayment target.
For our children, why will the government not commit that the
$10 billion it says will go to debt repayment will become a
yearly minimum amount of debt reduction for the rest of its
mandate?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the standard accounting
principle is that any surpluses left at the end of the year
automatically go to pay down the debt, but last fall in an
economic update the Minister of Finance said he would proactively
decide what would be paid down on the debt. This year he
announced a minimum of $10 billion against the debt.
As a result of the actions of the government we have reduced the
amount of revenue dollars from 36 cents per revenue dollar down
to about 25 cents per revenue dollar on servicing the debt, and
we will go further, faster.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Ministre de la Famille du Québec announced that the Quebec
parental leave program might have to be deferred until January
2003, because of the federal government's refusal to transfer to
it the sum of $500 million pursuant to section 69 of the
Employment Insurance Act.
What explanation is the federal government going to give to the
Quebec families forced by its stubbornness and confrontational
policies to wait yet another year before being able to benefit
from a parental leave program tailored to their needs?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada has been providing maternity
benefits to Canadians for more than 30 years and parental
benefits for the last decade. The initiative builds on a very
longstanding foundation. The extension of maternity and parental
benefits has been provided to Canadians at no additional cost. In
fact for the last seven years premiums have gone down under the
government.
Currently there are employers and provincial governments that
provide some top ups, and the province of Quebec is perfectly at
liberty to do that, building upon the very sound foundation that
the Canadian system provides.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is a
broad consensus in Quebec on this matter. Even the Quebec
national assembly has unanimously supported a motion demanding
that the federal government transfer the necessary funds to
create its own parental leave program.
When is the federal government finally going to respect Quebec
consensus, which it seems to take an unhealthy delight in
systematically ignoring?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada has obligations to all Canadian
workers. That is why we have established a very sound system
that has served well over time. As I indicated earlier, in the
case of maternity benefits they have been there for 30 years. In
the case of parental benefits they have been there for 10 years.
It provides a very sound system, at no additional cost.
Where provinces or employers wish to build upon that, they are
certainly at liberty to do so, based upon that very solid
foundation put in place by the national government for all
Canadians.
1125
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
unbelievable that the Minister of Natural Resources should be
answering questions dealing with family issues, while the
President of the Treasury Board, who is from Quebec and who
should understand these issues, remains silent.
The federal government does not understand that the Quebec
parental leave plan fits the Quebec reality.
I am asking the government, and more specifically the President
of the Treasury Board, if the federal government will finally
recognize, as the Quebec government did, that a parental leave
program must be part of a family policy rather than part of an
employment insurance program, and must certainly not be
connected to the Department of Natural Resources.
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. gentleman shows a surprising lack of knowledge
about the parliamentary system. Today I have the privilege of
answering questions in the House on behalf of my colleague, the
Minister of Human Resources Development, and I am proud to do so.
I am proud to explain to him once again that the Government of
Canada through the employment insurance system makes enormous
provision for dealing with the needs of families raising
children. Maternity benefits and parental benefits are part of
that.
In the last year we have taken a major step to extend those
benefits to the advantage of all Canadians everywhere, in every
corner of the country, and where provinces and private sector
employers wish to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
simply unbelievable that the Minister of Natural Resources
should be answering these questions.
Is the federal government saying that the family is not
important, that it is not important to have children? Is it also
saying that Quebec will have to wait until it is sovereign
before it can have a family policy? It will happen and we will
help make it happen.
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has demonstrated by its actions an
enormous commitment to all Canadian families.
I think, for example, of the child tax benefit which was
initiated by the government. In every budget since it was
introduced it has been increased by the government to the
advantage of Canadian children. It will accumulate to something
in the order of $9 billion worth of benefits to Canadian children
over the course of the next number of years.
On top of that were the maternity benefit extension, the
parental benefit extension, and the early childhood development
provided for in the last budget was at $2.1 billion. This
government—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday Canada lost the Metalclad decision in the British
Columbia supreme court. So did Mexico but, more important, so
did the environment.
A U.S. corporation circumvented environmental legislation so
that it could foist a toxic waste dump on an unwilling community.
Is the government now prepared to admit chapter 11 of NAFTA is
not working well, is not a good clause as the Prime Minister
insists but instead constitutes a hazard to our environment?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the
leader of the NDP misquotes the Prime Minister. What he said in
his press conference following the summit was that the clause
works reasonably well.
The minister had given the full context of our trade with the
United States. The Minister of International Trade has said the
same thing.
There have been attempts to misrepresent the statements of both
gentlemen but they do not bear scrutiny. The government has been
very clear. It wants to seek clarification of the clause but it
is not prepared to see a reopening of that clause.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
clarification of the clause came yesterday from the B.C. supreme
court. It is a threat to our environment.
The government is so exclusively preoccupied with protecting the
commercial interests of corporations it ignores the fact that
yesterday's Metalclad decision increases the cost of protecting
our environment, in this case by over $16 billion U.S. to ban a
toxic waste dump.
How could the government maintain the myth that NAFTA chapter 11
is not a threat to our environment?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the
NDP may be of the mind that nothing is being done but she is
simply misinformed if that is the case.
There are ongoing meetings with officials. The minister is
taking up the matter of chapter 11 with his counterpart
ministers. I repeat, the minister and the Prime Minister have
been very clear. The government feels that in certain cases
chapter 11 has been expanded beyond the original intention of the
signers. It seeks clarification and that there is the
wherewithal within NAFTA to achieve that clarification.
* * *
1130
FISHERIES
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Last year
the minister issued a quota of 1,500 metric tonnes of
Newfoundland northern shrimp to P.E.I.
Will the minister tell us whether he has or is about to issue
the same amount, perhaps with an increase, and if that temporary
measure as he said last year has now been made permanent?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have seen a tremendous amount of
growth in the northern shrimp resource. We have gone from 37,000
tonnes some five or six years ago to 112,000 tonnes.
We need to make sure that conservation is a priority. I am
still looking at the plan and no final decision has been made. I
can assure the hon. member that conservation will be our number
one priority to make sure we harvest the resource in a
sustainable way for all Canadians.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
that is the same answer as last year. I would like to ask the
minister about the recreational fishery.
Newfoundland over the last few years has been limited to a
fishery on a couple of weekends. This year the member for
Gander—Grand Falls told Newfoundlanders that the minister would
allow a lengthy fishery where each individual would be able to
buy 40 or 50 tags for the recreational fishery in the province.
Will the minister explain what type of recreational fishery he
plans for the province of Newfoundland this year?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question
because when I first became Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
there were representations from the Newfoundland government. It
did not want to have a recreational fishery only on a two weekend
basis. It wanted the fishery ongoing throughout the season with
proper tags, control and management.
This year we will be doing that on a pilot project basis, as the
representation from the Newfoundland government. We will ensure
there are proper tags and proper licensing so that we have better
management and control of the recreational fishery. It will be
done on a pilot project basis. It was done as a result of the
request by Newfoundland government. We will be watching closely
how it works.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, 15 year old Vanessa Young's tragic
death could have been prevented if she had all the relevant
information about her medication.
The health minister wants to simply warn people through his
website. That is feeble. How could the health minister offer
such a feeble solution to such a life and death problem?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has answered
these questions over the past several days.
He said that he wanted to implement all the recommendations of
the coroner's jury regarding this tragic case. Some of these
recommendations will seek to improve the public information
system on drugs.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the problem is the answers we are
getting are simply not good enough. This is a life and death
problem and we need to prevent these problems from occurring in
the future. There are solutions available.
Sana Sukkari is a pharmacist at Brant Memorial Hospital. She
has put forth a very important solution. Her research shows that
Health Canada could prevent deaths such as Vanessa's by
standardizing drug information leaflets so patients get the vital
information they require.
My question is simple. When will the health minister implement
this common sense, life saving solution?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Health indicated,
he is open to examining all the suggestions made, particularly
those that seek to improve the system. He will certainly take
heed of the hon. member's suggestion.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, rather than
improving matters, the federal government is stubbornly refusing
to transfer funds to Quebec, preferring to go after young
people, which is no help at all to parents wishing to have
children.
Again today, it is attacking women by appealing a Winnipeg
umpire's ruling that the EI plan was unfair and discriminatory
toward women.
When is the government going to change its attitude and give up
this policy of systematic confrontation?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in this case the Canada Employment Insurance Commission
made a unanimous decision to pursue a judicial review of the
umpire's ruling. The scope of the umpire's ruling went beyond
the particular case under consideration.
Therefore the commission felt that it was important to seek that
verification from the courts with respect to that ruling.
1135
However the hon. member should note that we have taken a number
of steps in the House to ensure that the employment insurance
program is more responsive to the needs of Canadians. I think of
Bill C-2 which the Bloc voted against.
[Translation]
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the President of the Treasury Board, who comes from Quebec.
Are attacking unemployed workers, women and young people,
ignoring self-employed workers and making life hard for young
Quebec families, the values that the Prime Minister of Canada was
talking about yesterday in Montreal? Was that what he really
meant to say?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again I point out that the hon. member is referring to a
specific case that was subject to a ruling by the Canada
Employment Insurance Commission. It was the commission that made
the unanimous decision to pursue a judicial review of the
umpire's ruling because it appeared to go beyond the specifics of
that particular case. It is important to seek clarification on
that point.
I remind the House that the government has moved to improve the
employment insurance system to make it more sensitive to the very
concerns the hon. member has referred to, some of the concerns
that were reflected in the particular—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has no idea what is
happening in western Canada. Nor does he know what is happening
in his own portfolio.
Yesterday in question period he invited organic growers to apply
for the freedom to market their own grain. They have repeatedly
done this, only to be ignored by the minister. When will the
minister introduce legislation that gives Canadian organic
growers the right to process and market their own grain?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask the hon. gentleman what part of the word democracy
he does not understand.
The Canadian Wheat Board is governed by a board of directors
that is two-thirds controlled by farmers who are elected by
farmers. The debate we had in the House two years ago was to
democratize the Canadian Wheat Board, to get rid of the old
commissioner system, and to put decision making and
accountability in the hands of farmers. It is up to the board of
directors to make those decisions. I encourage it to be
pro-active in doing so.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, 52% of voters in the election wanted
freedom to market. Surely the minister knows that the Canadian
Wheat Board cannot change the legislation. It can only apply the
law as it is written, and the law prevents organic growers from
developing the niche markets that will allow them to flourish.
Clearly the Canadian Wheat Board does not represent organic
producers in western Canada. Nor is it marketing their product.
Why is blindly protecting the power of the Canadian Wheat Board
more important than the economic health of organic growers?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, just to refresh the hon. gentleman's memory about the
course of that legislation which went through the House of
Commons a couple of years ago, in the original draft of that
legislation proposed by the government we laid out a proposed
procedure for changing the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board
one direction or the other. It was the opposition that insisted
that be removed from the legislation.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, although the
Minister of Foreign Affairs acknowledges the presence of
Talisman in Sudan will fuel a civil war, which looks more like
genocide, he said yesterday there must be proof that Talisman's
airport in the Sudan is being used for offensive purposes before
he considers taking action.
Sudan's military budget has more than doubled since the arrival
of petrodollars. Talisman's airstrip is being used as a base
for the Sudanese army and most of its helicopters are around the
oil wells.
What will it take for the minister to act?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have acted. I do not know exactly what the hon.
member wants to do other than to try to get Talisman to leave
Canada.
Perhaps that is a solution, but I do not understand why the
member thinks it would serve the interests of the people of
Sudan.
Yesterday, in committee, we debated the matter, and I think she
understands very well why we are very concerned about the
situation in Sudan. This is why CIDA is involved as well in
helping the Sudanese in southern Sudan.
1140
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a year ago, in
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, minister Axworthy
said he was considering amending the Special Economic Measures
Act. Nearly two months ago, the Secretary of State for Latin
America and Africa vigorously called for it. Time is passing,
and thousands of people will be killed.
Why is the minister not proposing amendments to the Special
Economic Measures Act and giving his government the power to
prevent a Canadian company from becoming the financial arm of
the war in Sudan and elsewhere?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the best way for Canada
to implement such measures is in a multilateral rather than a
unilateral context. There is disagreement.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: In the meantime, people are dying because of
Talisman and such action.
Hon. John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I also think it important to
understand that the situation in Sudan is very grave; it is a
civil war.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Fuelled by Talisman.
The Speaker: I think time has run out. The member for
Yellowhead.
* * *
[English]
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, 25,000 kilometres of highways criss-cross Canada and are
in a sad state of repair.
Canada is the only G-7 country without a long term national
investment strategy for highways. Just last week the
transportation minister told the Yellowhead Highways Association
that he knew there was a problem but there was nothing he could
do about it.
If the minister's voice is so weak at the cabinet table, will he
step aside and let the heritage minister take his place because
she seems to get everything she wants?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I could say a thing or two about that last remark, but I
think I had better stick to the facts.
When I was in Edmonton last week I said unequivocally that we
know there needs to be investment in Canada's highways. That is
why the Minister of Finance allocated $600 million in the budget
last year.
We all know we need more money but we also know there are other
priorities facing the treasury. Hon. members opposite and the
provinces want money spent on health care and many other worthy
things, so obviously it is a question of priorities. I am
hopeful we will get more money soon.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am hoping so too. If the minister is truly concerned
about strengthening our country, we need to commit to an
east-west transportation system.
I travel the Yellowhead Highway each week, one of the nation's
primary transportation links, and I have seen what the years of
neglect by the federal government have done to that highway.
The minister knows it will take $17 billion to fix the years of
neglect. Those numbers will only get larger. Will the minister
get serious about fixing the national highway system for the sake
of all Canadians?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member does not admit the fact that highways
are a provincial responsibility. If he has a question about the
quality of the surface of those highways in his province, he
should go to the provincial ministers and asking them why they
are not doing their job.
The federal government obviously wishes to assist with highways.
We have done it for 80 years. We are doing it now, and we will
put more money in as well in the future.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
the Environment.
Many cities in Canada have been surprised by early smog days.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House what the
government is doing to ensure Canadians will be breathing clean
air in the future?
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clean air is a priority for
the Minister of the Environment and the government. As a matter
of fact, our clean air agenda consists of an integrated strategy
of actions in the area of vehicles and fuels, industrial
emissions, the reduction of transporter air pollution and
engaging Canadians in these solutions.
On February 19 the minister announced a $120 million strategy of
new funding over four years. It will take strong action on
vehicles and fuels and will reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides
in new vehicles by 90%. We are acting on behalf of Canadians.
1145
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the acting Prime Minister.
We all know there has been another tragedy with contaminated
water, this time in North Battleford, Saskatchewan. In 1997 the
government introduced a bill on national water standards, Bill
C-14, which died at committee stage at that time.
Why has the government not introduced an updated version of that
bill so that the country can have a comprehensive water program
as well as a program where we can put more money into national
infrastructure specifically targeted for water treatment?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we obviously share the grief for those people affected
in North Battleford. This is becoming an occurrence that is all
too common in Canada. It happened a year or so ago in Walkerton,
Ontario.
The government believes that the improvement of our drinking
water supply and sewage treatment is of utmost priority. That is
why we have allocated $2 billion for infrastructure. In many of
the provinces much of that money is being used for water
purification. Hopefully we can use this kind of approach,
working with the provinces, to have a long term solution to the
problem.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and it
concerns Sudan and Talisman Energy.
Earlier this week the minister said that he had no evidence that
the Sudanese government was using Talisman's air fields for
offensive purposes in south Sudan. He relied on a document from
his own assistant in Sudan, Nick Coghlan, and whited out
substantial portions. That document states:
For the past month there have been two Hind gunships stationed at
Unity Field, and interlocutors told me they had been flying
sorties almost every day, taking on large amounts of ammunition,
“and unloading none...”.
Why did the minister's staff white out that section? Why did
the minister's staff say that was to protect Canadians when in
fact it was a deliberate cover up of the operations of Talisman
in allowing the Sudanese government to use its air fields for
offensive purposes in Sudan? Why the cover up?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows there is a procedure for
determining whether matters are properly withheld under access to
information.
A proper reading of the document will disclose that the presence
of Canadians at various sites in Sudan would have been disclosed.
I think those who were conducting the response to the access to
information request took the view that disclosing their
whereabouts would put them at risk and that is why they withheld
that information.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
just recently I obtained a ministerial briefing note that went
from the deputy minister to the minister of agriculture.
Effectively what it said was that agriculture was just rosy and
we should not worry. I quote reads “Despite perceptions,
indicators suggest the average producer is in reasonably good
shape”.
I ask the minister of agriculture, is this the information he
takes to the cabinet table? Is this why he fails miserably when
he tries to find funding for agriculture? Will he stop listening
to his bureaucrats?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we had this discussion at the standing
committee the other day and I outlined very clearly to the hon.
member and others that there are sectors of our agriculture
industry that are financially in better situations than others.
There are some sectors, such as the grains and oilseed sectors
that have been greatly affected by a number of issues and
situations in the world which is why we target the support that
we do. Obviously the hon. member did not listen to the answer
then and I hope he does today.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, DND has $70 million of inventory sitting in a Florida
warehouse owned by a convicted felon currently awaiting
sentencing, including heavy fines, incarceration and possible
seizure of assets. What specific measures has the minister taken
to protect Canadian property now in the hands of an international
drug dealer?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of
Canada has a competitive contract arrangement with Lancaster
Aviation. This is not the company to which the member referred.
Lancaster has been paid a fair commission to market and sell
these assets. Lancaster Aviation is solely responsible for the
marketing and sale of these assets. Those assets are only being
warehoused in Florida because that is exactly where the
market is.
* * *
1150
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, thousands of Liberals are appointed every year by the
great patronage machine of the Liberal government. Over half of
the Immigration and Refugee Board is made up of Liberals. Now we
find that two Liberal appointees have been convicted of theft and
found guilty of professional misconduct.
Why did the government appoint Liberals with records of
misconduct instead of appointing the best people for the job?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first criteria for appointment to the
Immigration and Refugee Board is qualifications and competence.
The member is attacking a board which has an international
reputation second to none. He should know that within that
process, in 1995, a ministerial advisory committee was
established. Individuals apply and only 30% of those who apply
are recommended. Those who are recommended have written a test,
have had their references checked and are qualified to serve.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, there is something wrong. We are talking about two
Liberal appointees who have been convicted of theft and found
guilty of professional misconduct. We are not even surprised to
find that one of these appointees comes from the Prime Minister's
riding.
Will the minister remove these two Liberals from their jobs on
the board?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if anyone has a concern about competence
of a member, the appropriate route to take is to discuss that
with the chair of the IRB who has the tools. Under Bill C-11 the
provisions are there for him to make recommendations if he has
concerns about the competence of a member.
However, I will say that anyone is welcome to apply, whether
they are Liberals or members of the other parties. In fact,
given the fact that so many people supported the Liberal Party it
would not be unusual to see people with Liberal connections
appointed. That is appropriate.
I do not know whether the hon. member would qualify but he is
certainly welcome to apply.
* * *
[Translation]
CONTAMINATED SITES
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois has obtained National Defence documents indicating
that the Jacques Cartier River is contaminated by exploded and
unexploded munitions and shells.
The federal government is directly responsible for this
contamination, which is likely to have harmful effects on the
people of the region, particularly because this is a
recreational area.
Could the minister tell us what concrete measures he has planned
for decontaminating this site as promptly as possible?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, between 1995 and 2000 the segment of the Jacques
Cartier River that is located within the limits of CFB Valcartier
was completely decontaminated through a program involving several
phases. There is no longer a threat that ordnance will migrate
outside the perimeter of the base.
Last summer the portion of the river located in Shannon was
successfully decontaminated. The department will continue to
take these matters seriously and ensure that we clean up these
situations.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us
understand each other properly here. According to his own
department's documents, steps must be taken on an urgent basis
in light of the immediate risk to human health and to the
environment.
My question is the following: What does the minister intend to
do? When? What is he going to do, concretely, to ensure the
complete decontamination of this site?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we have taken action in this regard.
We have done so in consultation with both Environment Canada and
environment Quebec. We have been communicating with the local
municipalities.
We will continue to take whatever action is necessary to ensure
that decontamination programs are carried out and that we keep
the area safe.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago Cuba aimed its missiles
at North America. Canada and the United States together went on
full military alert to deal with the crisis.
Forty years later, the United States has the technology to
defend against the missile threat of rogue nations and wants to
build a North American protective shield against these threats.
Will parliament be fully involved in the decision making
process?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yes.
1155
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, before the Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, General Baril
said that Canada's participation in missile defence would be a
political, not a military decision.
Yesterday the Liberal member for Oshawa's statement indicated
that a political decision had already been made, quote, “we're
not going to support it”.
Why was parliament not consulted before this decision was made?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I guess one member of parliament has made up his
mind about the issue. However, the government has indicated many
times that we are in a consultation process now with the United
States, as it is with other allies, with Russia and with China.
It has not designed the parameters of its program. It has not
made a decision on that specific program. We are in the
consultation phase and we will continue in that phase.
* * *
ATLANTIC TRADE MISSION
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, along with the Prime Minister and the four
Atlantic premiers, will be leading a delegation of Atlantic
Canadian companies on the first ever Team Canada Atlantic trade
mission to Atlanta.
Could the minister for ACOA tell us what precisely this trade
mission will contribute to economic development in Atlantic
Canada?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it will be a great
pleasure for me to lead a delegation of 40 companies to the
fastest growing segment of the American market. We will get a
strong foothold in the southern United States. We have had great
success in the northeastern United States. Our last three
missions contributed $7 million in direct sales and $70 million
in anticipated sales over the next three years.
I look forward to our participation with the collaboration of
the four Atlantic provinces and all private industry to a
successful mission.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the junior minister of multiculturalism shamelessly slandered the
people of Prince George in her now infamous accusation of cross
burnings. To add insult to injury, she claimed to have a letter
from the mayor, but she has been unable to produce the letter
because it does not exist.
In most previous parliaments such blatant behaviour would have
resulted in the immediate firing of the guilty minister. Will
the Prime Minister fire her immediately or is he planning to wait
until summer?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. secretary of state admitted to a mistake. She
made an apology and that apology was accepted by members of the
House.
I would ask the hon. member to show some parliamentary decency
and accept the secretary of state's apology.
We all make mistakes. Even the leader of the member's party has
made mistakes. We have accepted the apology of the hon.
secretary of state. I hope members of his party will accept the
apology of his own leader.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, all she did was express regret for being caught. She
said there were cross burnings, but there were not. She said she
had a letter, but there was no letter. Access to information
requests now give positive proof that the mayor of Prince George
was accurate when he denied its existence.
For a minister in her position to make up such a damning and
false accusation is in and of itself sufficient grounds for
dismissal. However, to deny and cover up exposes an inherent
character flaw and total unsuitability for this position.
Will the Prime Minister show that he has some small semblance of
ethics left and just get rid of her?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe I have answered the question. If the hon.
member is so persistent and wants to talk about character flaws,
and his colleague says that we should show some leadership, I
would ask the members opposite to look at the character flaws of
their own leader who has not had the decency to make an apology
to a Quebec judge.
* * *
[Translation]
SENIORS
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
our seniors, many of them with low incomes, are seeing their
purchasing power continually dwindle away.
Seniors' average income has not kept step with the cost of
living increases. They are even 10% poorer. What is more,
older women living alone experience an ever greater shortfall,
and their average income has also dropped since 1997.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board, unless
the presence of the Minister of Transport has rendered her
speechless.
Is she aware that our seniors, after a lifetime of work, deserve
better than the treatment they are getting from the government?
When does she intend to raise the budget for the old age
security program—
The Speaker: The Minister of Natural Resources.
1200
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources
Development, obviously the situation of elderly people is a
matter of importance to all Canadians.
We have over the years in Canada developed a system including
the OAS and the GIS which provides for senior citizens. It is
one of the most comprehensive and generous in the world. We are
always looking for ways to improve upon it. The commitment to the
elderly in Canada will continue to be a characteristic of the
government.
* * *
[Translation]
HOUSING
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation helped
Russia develop a new building code that is based on Canada's
national housing code.
This was done in partnership with CIDA, the Departments of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the NRC and
Underwriters Laboratories of Canada.
Could the minister tell us how this initiative may help Canada?
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to advise the House that a new Russian building code will
open the doors to goods in the vast Russian market, thanks in
large part to the respected expertise of CMHC.
Canada's housing exporters could reach a housing market of up to
400,000 units, and a potential of 700,000 housing units if the
code is adopted by other former Soviet Union countries. This is
very good news for Canada's housing related industries. Let me
assure hon. members that CMHC will continue to promote Canada's
housing expertise around the world.
* * *
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Madam
Speaker, about ten days ago, I asked the Prime Minister a
question in which I alluded to a lease signed by the Auberge
Grand-Mère and the Grand-Mère golf club. The Prime Minister
replied by making unrelated comments and denied the existence of
such a lease.
Consequently, I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House
to table a lease signed by the Auberge Grand-Mère and the
Grand-Mère golf course.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous consent of
the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
SAHTU DENE AND METIS LAND CLAIMS AGREEMENT REPORT
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
under provisions of Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, copies of the 1999-2000 annual
report of the implementation committee on the Sahtu Dene and
Metis comprehensive land claims agreement.
* * *
1205
GWICH'IN LAND CLAIMS AGREEMENT REPORT
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
copies of the 1998-99 annual report of the implementation
committee on the Gwich'in comprehensive land claims agreement.
* * *
YUKON LAND CLAIMS AGREEMENT REPORT
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
copies of the 1998-99 annual report of the implementation of the
Yukon land claims agreement.
As you can tell, Madam Speaker, we are cleaning house. It is
necessary to table these reports and I apologize that they are a
little late.
* * *
INUVIALUIT FINAL AGREEMENT REPORT
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
copies of the 1998-99 annual report of the implementation of the
Inuvialuit final agreement.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the third
report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern
Development and Natural Resources on the Main Estimates,
2001-02.
[English]
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, during the last parliament the Standing Committee
on Finance tabled a report entitled “Challenge for Change. A
Study of Cost Recovery”.
Parliament was dissolved before the government was able to
provide a comprehensive response to that committee pursuant to
Standing Order 109. For that reason I have the honour to present
the fourth report which restates the committee's request.
I also have the honour to present the fifth report of the
Standing Committee on Finance regarding its order of reference of
Monday, April 23, in relation to Bill C-17, an act to amend the
Budget Implementation Act, 1997, and the Financial Administration
Act.
The committee has considered Bill C-17 and reports the bill
without amendment.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 12th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership
of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans
Affairs.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 12th report later this day.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-343, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (violent crimes).
He said: Madam Speaker, the bill comes out of a desire to halt
violent crimes and to protect society. It applies only to
individuals who have been convicted on three separate occasions
of a violent offence, for example murder, rape or sexual abuse.
A person who has demonstrated a wilful neglect for the basic
respect of human life and human dignity will be met with an
obligatory 25 year jail term.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CONTRAVENTIONS ACT
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-344, an act to
amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act (marijuana).
He said: Madam Speaker, the bill deals with the simple
possession of marijuana.
1210
Our courts are clogged today and the purpose of my bill is to
unclog them. It would decriminalize, not legalize, the simple
possession of marijuana. It would provide penalties, unclog our
courts and save huge amounts of money for the court system. It
would also allow police officers to do more important things,
such as going after rapists, murderers, robbers and people
involved in organized crime.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
IMMIGRATION ACT
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-345, an act to
amend the Immigration Act (requirement to show evidence of
identity).
He said: Madam Speaker, the bill obligates individuals entering
Canada to have identification with them. The small proviso is
that individuals claiming refugee status where no identification
can be produced would be exempt.
However, by and large, all individuals entering Canada who claim
refugee status would be obliged to provide identification. If
they want to appeal a decision they would have seven days to do
so. The appeal would be heard by a senior immigration officer
whose decision would be final.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
ENDANGERED SPECIES SANCTUARIES ACT
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-346, an act
respecting the creation of sanctuaries for endangered species of
wildlife.
He said: Madam Speaker, one of the challenges facing our
country is the identification of critical habitat based on
scientific means. The bill would enable critical habitat,
habitat essential to the preservation of endangered species, to
be protected. The designation of a species would be done on
scientific grounds based on COSEWIC.
The bill would obligate the federal government to enter into
agreements not only with provinces but with private landowners.
Under extenuating circumstances where no agreement can be reached
the bill would enable the federal government to impose minimal
expropriation. Individuals would be remunerated at fair market
value for whatever is expropriated.
The bill would strike a balance between private and public
interests for species deemed endangered.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
BLOOD SAMPLES ACT
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-347, an act to
provide for the taking of samples of blood to detect the presence
of certain viruses.
He said: Madam Speaker, the bill pertains to individuals, such
as police officers, firefighters, good Samaritans and hospital
workers, who, in the line of duty, are exposed to blood and blood
products that may contain hepatitis B, C or the HIV virus. The
bill would give them the right to know the contents of the blood
to see if it contained substances that could kill them.
The bill would strike a reasonable balance to enable the
individual exposed to blood or blood products in an unfortunate
manner to have immediate knowledge of its contents.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1215
[Translation]
CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Industry) moved
that Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations
Act and the Canada Cooperatives Act and to amend other acts, be
read the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 12th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to
the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise to present a petition from citizens of the Peterborough area
who support the development of a bioartificial kidney.
The bioartificial kidney is an experimental implant device which
would be an alternative to kidney dialysis or kidney transplants,
which at present are the only treatments available to those with
end stage kidney disease.
I present a petition involving tens of thousands of signatures
which was developed by Ken Sharp in my riding. I am pleased to
say that next week there will be a meeting between leading
researchers on this topic in the United States and Canada.
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would also like to present a petition from citizens of the
Peterborough area who want a re-establishment of VIA Rail
commuter service between Toronto and Peterborough.
They point to the environmental advantages, such as a reduction
in greenhouse emissions and a reduction in accidents on the
highways, and that it would help Peterborough become even
stronger as a business, tourist and educational centre.
The petition has the support from the federal ridings of
Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Durham, Whitby—Ajax,
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Markham and even
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.
PESTICIDES
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to table a petition on behalf of the residents of
Halifax, the riding that I have the privilege to represent. It
is a petition that calls upon parliament to enact an immediate
moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides.
There are two principles that underlie the petition. First is
the precautionary principle, the concept that we should not allow
the use of chemicals that have not been proven to be safe for
human consumption and for our planet.
Second, the very principle that if we have neighbours who are
suffering ill-health effects from a chemical being used for
cosmetic purposes, surely the health considerations of citizens
should come ahead of our aspirations to have lawns that are free
of weeds.
I am pleased to table the petition and hope that the government
would take it under serious consideration.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is my honour to present two identical petitions
signed by over 200 constituents.
The petitioners are requesting that parliament enact the
necessary legislation to make it mandatory for all products
containing genetically altered foods to be clearly labelled as
such, regardless of percentage of content, that may prove harmful
to consumers.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1220
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order respecting questions on the
order paper.
I have a complaint that is a weekly sort of rant. Under the
provisions of Standing Order 39 members are allowed to put up to
four questions on the order paper. I wish to remind the House
and the Canadian public that those questions are put on the order
paper for a very specific purpose. The House allows that
provision in the standing orders in order to allow members of
parliament to do their job.
I have had two questions on the order paper well in excess of 60
days with no response from the government. Madam Speaker, with
the generosity that you exercise from the chair, could you
imagine any government minister putting questions to the
government and having to wait more than 24 hours for those
answers? The fact is the government has the resources to answer
those questions today if it wants to.
There is such a thing as transparency. In the business of
politics there should be transparency. This restricts my ability
to represent my constituents.
To conclude, this is a very important topic dealing with the
Department of Human Resources Development, the abuse of
shellfishers in eastern Canada and the violation of the code of
ethics of government employees.
It is important that the Canadian public and members of
parliament know the answers to those questions. It is
inexcusable that we have to wait in excess of 60 days for answers
to very important questions.
Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is
assiduous in pursuing answers to his written questions.
The government makes every effort to provide answers on a timely
basis. It is worth noting that oftentimes the way the questions
are prepared involve many person hours taking into due regard the
amount of resources and the amount of research that must be put
into obtaining an answer. We have often seen replies in the
House in the form of documentation that is a half-inch to an inch
thick and involving more than one ministry.
Regrettably sometimes these answers take more than the presumed
reasonable amount of time. I realize that the hon. member has
two specific questions on the order paper. In light of his
representation today he can be sure that I and others who are
involved in the preparation of these answers will look for a
reply very soon.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
MARINE LIABILITY ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill S-2, an act respecting
marine liability, and to validate certain by-laws and
regulations, as reported (without amendment) from the committee,
and of Motions Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker,
I would like to make some brief comments on behalf of my
colleague, the member for St. John's East, who has carriage of
the legislation. Coming from St. John's he obviously understands
the necessity for requirements with respect to marine liability.
As I understand it there are two amendments. One was put
forward by the member for Prince George—Peace River. It calls
upon the House to amend clause 39 of the bill to make liability
insurance for passenger vessels mandatory as of January 1, 2003.
Our party agrees with it. We believe that anyone who is carrying
passengers should have mandatory liability insurance.
The other one comes from the member for Windsor—St. Clair. It
keeps the current wording of clause 39 that allows the government
to introduce compulsory liability insurance by regulation if it
sees fit. However the amendment adds a second part requiring
vessel operators without insurance to post a notice to that
effect until such time as liability insurance becomes compulsory.
1225
We agree that if there is no liability insurance covered by the
carrier of that particular vessel it should be posted for
customers to see. Customers would then have the opportunity of
deciding whether or not to use the carrier.
The bill consolidates Canada's marine liability law and
incorporates into Canadian law a number of international
conventions to which we are a signatory. However, nowhere in the
117 pages of the bill does it say a vessel owner must have the
kind of liability insurance that the bill endlessly talks about
throughout the whole document. That in itself is absolutely
astounding. We would never think of taking to the roads without
liability insurance. When we drive on roads we not only have
collision but also liability coverage should we be at fault or be
involved in the injury or death of other parties.
That is what we are suggesting should happen here. It should
apply not only to ocean going vessels but to those vessels that
may carry passengers and operate inland. There are a lot of
lakes and waterways in Canada. We believe that any Canadian
passenger vessel should have the mandatory requirement of
carrying liability insurance.
That is not asking very much because there is not a huge cost
associated with it. It is just good business. Whether or not it
is the law the carriers should carry such insurance, but we know
that some carriers feel for whatever reasons that if they do not
want to they should not be forced to.
That is why we are suggesting the amendments put forward by the
members for Prince George—Peace River and Windsor—St. Clair
should be accepted by the government so that the changed
legislation would serve Canadians better. I put that on the
record on behalf of my colleague from St. John's East.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I would like to address a few items in Bill S-2. I
cannot resist the temptation to draw attention once again to the
fact that Bill S-2 comes from the Senate. I would ordinarily
have no objection to a bill coming from the Senate. I know some
members of the Senate. Some are very honourable people and they
work very hard. That is fine, but I really wish they were
elected.
There is something wrong in a modern day democracy when members
can actually introduce bills which affect our lives and they are
not even elected. It is like reverting to a time when kings used
to tell people what to do. If the people did not obey they were
clubbed with a mace, similar to the one we have in the House.
That was the original purpose of the mace, to enforce the law of
government or the law of the king.
I object that the bill comes from the Senate. It should have
been introduced in this elected House. We will not flag in our
zeal to have an elected Senate. I have had several conversations
with some senators and have urged them to push for an elected
Senate. As I told them, I am sure that with their popularity
they would probably be elected anyway. They have nothing to
worry about. It would give the position a lot more legitimacy.
Today we are dealing with the liability insurance of shipowners.
It is curious to me that shipowners of the few ships registered
in this country are not required by law to actually carry
liability insurance. It is very strange.
1230
I have a couple of vehicles. I am required by law to carry
liability insurance, not only for someone who happens to be in my
vehicle but if I happen to injure someone in another vehicle.
As a matter of fact, I had a conversation with someone just a
few weeks ago about the required liability insurance on my
motorcycle. I said it was really unfair that the liability
insurance on my motorcycle was almost as high as it was on my
car. I said that was really wrong because if I was in an
accident, although I am well padded, it would still result most
certainly in serious injuries. Yet I had this huge liability. I
said my little 400 pound vehicle with a 400 pound rider was not
going to cause nearly as much damage as if I had hit somebody
with my 6,000 pound Suburban. So that insurance was very unfair.
The point I am making is that I am required to carry liability
insurance in the event that something happens, so I comply with
that law.
It is beyond me why the government would choose not to include
such a provision for shipowners and the protection of their
passengers. It really boggles the mind. Every provincial
government has required public liability insurance. Taxis have
to. Buses have to. Airlines have to. Who does not have to?
The shipowners. Again, s stands for senate and s
also stands for ships.
I have to digress. I am on the finance committee and so I have
great interest in taxes and things like that. It is a curiosity
to me that there are some Canadians who actually own ships who do
not even register them in our own country. I suppose they think
that the tax regime here is unfavourable to them, so they fly
flags of convenience, as they are called, registering their ships
in some other country where either the taxes are lower or do not
exist at all. I am not aware of this, but it seems to me that
this particular bill would possibly not even apply to ships which
are not registered in Canada. That is a whole other question
which ought to be addressed.
There is an amendment put forward by our transportation critic
which is a very fine amendment. During the committee hearings on
the bill, there were representatives who said we should have
compulsory insurance. There were representatives from the
insurance industry who said they were ready to provide it, that
they would write it up and that everything would be in place.
Notwithstanding that, government officials said there was some
barrier and that they could not do it. However the insurance
people said “Yes we can. What is the impediment?” They said it
was all ready to go. The government said in those committee
meetings that it would introduce regulations which would make
insurance compulsory.
Listen to this very fine amendment. I know it has already been
read into the record but it is such a fine one. The motion that
our party is putting forward, which must be passed, is just
common sense. It says “The Governor in Council”, that is the
Cabinet, “shall make regulations by January 1, 2003”, that is
over a year and a half from now, “requiring insurance or
evidence of financial security be maintained to cover liability
under this part”.
I do not see a person in the House rising to speak against the
amendment. There has not yet been one. That is because there is
no rational argument against the amendment.
My big task then is to persuade the 172 Liberals over there to
support the amendment. That is the challenge. I feel that I am
doubly offended. First, the bill came into here from the Senate
and not from this elected place.
1235
The second way in which I am offended is that I do not know if
the Liberal members, who are in the majority in the House, all
172 of them over there, are even hearing my arguments. I am
telling them there is no rational reason to reject this
amendment. If they would only show that they have an ability to
hear an argument, to understand it and show some wisdom when the
vote is called and rise unison say that yes, it is a great
amendment, it makes sense and is consistent with all other
transportation facilities in the country, therefore we will
support that amendment. There is just no other way.
In a way I am wasting my time putting forward this argument.
Anybody who would read it and think for about .38 milliseconds,
because that is how long it would take, could compute that is the
only reasonable response.
Will they do it? Dare I express my pessimism about it. It
seems to me that for the sole reason that this amendment came
from the opposition rather than from the government the members
will be told “No, we want to be agin this one”. In unison they
will stand up and say that they will not vote for common sense,
that they will not vote for a rational argument and that they
will not vote for the protection of passengers embarking on trips
on ships which originate in Canadian ports. They will do as they
are told and vote against the amendment.
That is what I cannot understand. That is where I suddenly have
difficulty understanding what goes on here.
I have stated the case as strongly as I can on that amendment.
It is absolutely mandatory, it makes sense and it is for the
protection of passengers. Furthermore, it is totally doable.
The insurance people have told us it is. There is no loss to the
government. All it is is a requirement that these shipowners who
take passengers on will have the ability to cover a possible
loss. That is so standard in the industry all over the world.
It is unbelievable that in this country we even hesitate on that.
I have about two seconds to say that the NDP motion is the
backup one. It says that in the event that these Liberals do not
think on the Canadian Alliance amendment, they have an
opportunity to bail themselves out partially by requiring that
these shipowners post a notice clearly visible to passengers
boarding their ships that there is no insurance on their ships.
That also makes sense. We insist nowadays that consumers be
informed of what their food contains, so they should be informed
of what coverage they have when they go on a ship.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready
for the question.
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on
Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Normally at this time
the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division
at report stage of the bill. However the recorded division
stands deferred until Monday, May 7, at 6.30 p.m.
1240
Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There have been discussions between
the parties and I think you would find agreement in the House to
further defer the recorded division requested on report stage of
Bill S-2 until the end of government orders on Tuesday, May 8.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, in view of the expeditious
passage of that stage of that bill, the House might have a
disposition to see the clock as 1.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 1.30 p.m.
the House will now proceed to the consideration of private
members' business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) moved that
Bill C-245, an act to amend the Criminal Code (search and seizure
without warrant) be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak on my private
member's bill, Bill C-245, which is an act to amend the criminal
code regarding search and seizure without warrant. The act is
directed specifically at the Firearms Act, the part of the
criminal code that was implemented with the passing of Bill C-68,
the infamous gun bill.
First, what I will do in my presentation is talk a little about
what the bill does, why it is here, why I think it is very
important and why a lot of people in my constituency and across
the country feel it is important.
Second, I will talk about my specific concerns with the part of
the criminal code which allows search and seizure without warrant
and what I propose we should do about it.
Third, I will look at one or two cases, as time will allow, and
work through them. One is a very recent case of a newspaper
reporting an incident where a gentleman, actually a neighbour of
mine on the farm where I was raised, had his house broken into,
and what led up to that. That demonstrates probably better than
any other way what some of the problems with the current act are.
That is what I will do with my presentation. I am looking
forward to getting into this issue.
First, Bill C-245 deals with Part III of the criminal code as
enacted by section 139 of the Firearms Act. It was implemented
with the passing of Bill C-68 several years ago. The purpose is
to remove the power in subsection 117.04(2) to search and seize
without a warrant in cases where no offence has been committed.
I encourage people listening to the debate on the bill to look
at this. It deals with search and seizure without a warrant in
cases where no offence has been committed or is suspected to have
been committed. It is really important to know that.
My bill, if passed, would end the unusual search and seizure
provisions as put forth by Bill C-68 and bring them more in line
with search and seizures in the rest of the criminal code. This
is something for which Canadians have been asking, especially gun
owners and those who understand that the whole so-called issue of
the gun bill really goes way beyond guns. It speaks to our civil
liberties, and constitutional implications are involved. I will
get to some of those later.
The second part of the bill also makes provision for the
restitution for unnecessary loss or damage in a case where a
search has taken place. The way it is worded it takes into
account whether the loss or damage was reasonably necessary in
light of the evidence collected and in light of the behaviour of
the person or persons on the premises. I am not saying there is
no reason to cause damage in the case of a search process. I
want this to be very reasonable.
1245
What I am saying in my bill is that in cases where it is
demonstrated that the damage done was unreasonable and
unnecessary there would be restitution for the damage done. I
think that will cause police officers to be very cautious in
their search process, as well as peace officers, because of
course under this act it does not even have to be police officers
that break into a house without a warrant. It can be any peace
officer, which broadens it considerably. That is what I am
asking for in the second part of the bill. I would add a section
which would ensure that if unnecessary damage is done there would
be restitution. That in a nutshell is what the bill is about.
In regard to my concerns, subsection 117.04(2) allows a peace
officer to enter the premises to search for and to seize weapons
without a warrant. Removal of this section means that a warrant
must be obtained for search and seizure except in cases of fresh
pursuit, so again I am not being unreasonable. I think most
members would agree that this is completely reasonable in a case
of fresh pursuit where the police officers strongly believe that
there could be some danger to someone and they want to be able to
continue the pursuit. Of course I think the court would
determine whether it was reasonable. I trust that process.
Certainly it would end the measure put in place under Bill C-68
which allows search and seizure without a warrant at all. That
is what is of great concern to me.
Under section 8 of the charter it says that Canadians have the
right “to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure”.
That is in our constitution. Does that sound unreasonable to
anyone here? I do not think so. I have some problems with the
charter in a broad sense, but I, and I believe many Canadians,
would not have a problem with saying that Canadians have the
right to feel secure and be secure against unreasonable search
and seizure.
I argue and many Canadians have argued very vigorously that the
changes put in the criminal code as a result of the passage of
Bill C-68, the so-called gun bill, really take away that right
that is guaranteed under the charter. Whether the courts would
or not I cannot say. However, I know many Canadians feel that it
is a problem, a problem put in place with the passage of Bill
C-68.
I would like to speak to the issue of compensation for
unnecessary damage done. I may get to two examples, but I
probably only have time for one. I will work through that
example and talk about damage done to private property to a great
degree in that case, damage which seems to be completely
unnecessary and excessive and in my view unacceptable. When I
get into the case I think that will be better understood.
The second part of the bill ensures that the damage and the
confiscation of property without compensation violates a
fundamental right of Canadian citizens, the right to own
property. A problem we have as Canadians is that the right to
own property is not enshrined in our constitution. Many thought
that it should have been part of the charter. I certainly think
it should be in our constitution. So far politicians have chosen
not to put it there, but certainly common law and most Canadians
would agree that we do have a right to own property in this
country and that this right should be respected.
How could one argue that this right is being respected in cases
where we have peace officers breaking into someone's house
without a warrant and doing unnecessary damage to property or
removing property unnecessarily? We are not talking about
interfering in the actions of police officers where such actions
are necessary. We are talking about unreasonable actions.
Bill C-245 adds a provision to the criminal code that enables a
person to apply for restitution to the justice who issued the
warrant, warrants being issued in all cases except those where
there is fresh pursuit.
In these cases they would have a right to apply to the justice
for restitution of the property that has been the subject of
entry and search under the authority of a warrant pursuant to the
Firearms Act and if their property has been lost or damaged as a
result of this entry and search.
1250
The bill also adds that the justice will fix a date for a
hearing on the matter. The justice will notify the applicant,
the officer or officers involved and the officer who applied for
the warrant as well as anyone else the justice sees fit to
notify. After the hearing, the justice may order restitution to
the person whose property has been damaged.
I ask members to think of the practical benefit of this. I have
heard numerous complaints, as I am sure many of my colleagues
have, about searches conducted by peace officers which have
caused incredible damage, way beyond anything that makes sense.
Part of the reason for that is that police officers have become
so frustrated because their hands are tied under laws which,
quite frankly, have been protected by the government. They feel
their hands are so tied that even if they get a case to court and
have a lot of evidence, quite frequently the case is thrown out.
They are frustrated by that. I have actually heard the thinking
on this from some police officers, although I do not think it is
justifiable. I think it is wrong, but the thinking on the part
of police officers is that they know this person is a law breaker
so they will make him pay in this way. They will do considerable
damage in the search and that will be justice in itself. Any of
us in the House would agree that is not proper and not right. I
think this change would only give reasonable protection to that
type of action.
In the bill there are exceptions to compensation. The bill does
list several situations where compensation is not warranted.
According to Bill C-245, no person is entitled to restitution for
loss or damage resulting from entry or search “if the person is
convicted of an offence on the basis of the evidence discovered
during the search”. Even in this situation, the justice must
conclude that the loss or damage was not excessive in light of
the nature of the offence.
Second, if the applicant lost something he or she did not have
the right to possess, then of course the applicant would not be
compensated. For example, if someone had stolen some property,
in this case guns, ammunition or other property that was
discovered in the search, then of course the person should not be
compensated for the loss of that property. It does cover that
kind of thing. It also covers loss or damage if it was a result
of the applicant and/or another person on the premises refusing
to co-operate with the police officer. It recognizes that in
cases where the occupants refuse to co-operate, there may be more
damage done than there would be in another type of search. It
covers that kind of thing.
With regard to the limits of restitution for loss or damage,
Bill C-245 states that there are no limits to restitution for
loss or damage if the damage was not necessary. That is only
reasonable. Again, it goes to the very right to own property and
to the expectation that police officers will conduct themselves
properly in the case of a search.
It is recognized in the bill that speed in a search may be
necessary because of the circumstances and the loss or damage may
be reasonable where speed is necessary. There may be more damage
in a case like that. The justice can also take into account the
behaviour of the applicant and other persons during entry and
search.
I will now go through a case. I will start by reading, if I
may, a short article from the Edmonton Journal. I also
have one from the Edmonton Sun. They are very short
articles which will not take a lot of time to read. I will then
go through them and talk about the case. This article is
entitled “Machine guns, ammo found in Lloyd home”. This is an
article from March 23. It says:
More than 100 firearms, including machine guns, and thousands of
rounds of ammunition were seized during the search of a home
about 20 kilometres southwest of Lloydminster on Wednesday.
“RCMP received a tip in February about the weapons, many of
which were unlicensed and illegal”, said Const. Jason Simpson of
the Kitscoty RCMP detachment.
It continues:
A firearms expert is sorting through the prohibited and
unregistered restricted weapons to make sure proper charges are
laid. Simpson said the machine guns were found among a large
quantity of hunting rifles.
1255
The article goes on to say the man would not be named and that
the police declined to give details about the suspect because of
the small population. Of course everybody in the country knows
who it is just as a result of this article.
There was a reference to more than 100 firearms. Immediately I
can see the reaction: that there was no reason the guy would
need 100 firearms and so of course he deserved what he got.
However, he is a gun collector. He has been collecting guns for
years. In regard to the machine guns and thousands of rounds of
ammunition, people would think that there was no good reason for
him to have them. All of the weapons could well have been
legally obtained and may have been legal to own when he came into
possession of the weapons. Since that time the laws have
changed, making them illegal.
People would then argue that he should have registered them,
that he should have done what was necessary. I will not argue
that it is the law. However, the individual knew that if he had
registered the weapons, if he had done what was proper, they
would have been taken away from him without compensation.
Consider how that could change how one would think about the
situation. It is important to consider that.
I am being given the signal to wrap up, but I look forward to
the opportunity to talk more about this at the end of the hour.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I rise today to speak to Bill C-245, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (search and seizure without warrant).
The proposed amendments to the criminal code would prohibit a
peace officer who was aware that a danger to public safety
existed from searching for and seizing, without first having to
obtain a warrant, firearms from people who pose a potential
danger to themselves or to the public.
Regardless of the existence of exigent circumstances, that is,
circumstances that have been examined by the courts in the past
and found to be constitutional, the amendment would prohibit
police from quelling an imminent danger to public safety. It is
conceivable that the police would be powerless to act while life
is at risk.
In many situations where time is of the essence, this could
result in the loss of life. The provisions of Bill C-245 are
inconsistent with the powers police need to effectively perform
their duties. They are inconsistent with the principles of
firearms control in Canada and inconsistent with the interest of
public safety.
The proposed amendments by the hon. member for Lakeland would
endanger public safety. The Minister of Justice cannot support
the amendments to the criminal code put forth by the hon. member.
The existing provisions of the criminal code are a valuable part
of Canada's firearms control legislation and important for
ensuring public safety. The controls on the possession and use
of firearms set out in the Firearms Act are justified in a free
and democratic society by the need for safety and security for
our society.
While it is recognized that most Canadians who own and use
firearms do so prudently and responsibly, the presence of
firearms under some circumstances carries with it a risk for the
safety of all. In those circumstances, the police must be
empowered to adequately respond to the danger present. The
current provisions of the criminal code permit them to do that.
Bill C-245 would not.
The current provisions of the criminal code were devised to
reach a middle ground, balancing an individual's need for privacy
with the public's right for safety and security. They have been
refined over the years to ensure that the parameters are clearly
understood. They have been in place in one form or another for
over 25 years and have not been the subject of misuse.
As a rule, a peace officer requires a warrant to search for and
seize firearms or firearms related items from individuals where
it is not in the interest of safety that the person possess
firearms.
Where public safety is at risk and exigent circumstances are
present, the criminal code permits peace officers, provided that
they have reasonable grounds to obtain a warrant, to search for
and seize firearms and firearms related items without a warrant.
While the existing provisions of the criminal code permit
searches and seizures of firearms and firearms related items in
exigent circumstances, such searches are not without limits or
exempt from judicial scrutiny. A peace officer who conducts a
search without a warrant must nonetheless forthwith make a return
to a justice indicating the items seized and the grounds on which
the search was conducted. Thus, judicial scrutiny is maintained
even over exceptional searches.
1300
The proposed legislation put forward by the hon. member for
Lakeland would allow a person whose property is lost or damaged
as a result of entry and search to apply for restitution to the
justice who issued the warrant.
The criminal code does not provide immunity from civil liability
for damage to property. While peace officers are in some
instances offered protection from criminal liability they remain
accountable to the courts in both a criminal and civil context
for their actions.
In civil courts crown liability exists by virtue of the Crown
Liability and Proceedings Act. The liability of provincial or
municipal peace officers is addressed by provincial police acts
or other acts.
In the same manner as a private person, the crown is liable in
tort for damages caused by its agents. Capricious or careless
actions on behalf of peace officers in conducting search and
seizure for firearms or firearms related items, either with or
without a warrant, remain actionable.
The provisions authorizing warrantless searches do not confer
untrammelled powers to peace officers. People who suffer
property loss or damage as a result of a search and seizure by
peace officers, either with or without a warrant, already have a
means to seek redress if they have been wronged or have suffered
damages.
The issue of restitution for lost or damaged property is
complex. The hon. member for Lakeland proposes that matters of
civil liability be dealt with in criminal courts by justices who
are trained to deal with criminal matters. Justices who hear
applications for warrants to search and seize are not experienced
in issues of civil liability. Those matters are best left to the
civil courts.
Civil courts are in a better position to adequately deal with
issues of liability, value and quantum of damages. They have the
expertise and experience and they deal with such issues day to
day.
The current provisions of the criminal code strike the proper
balance between an individual's need for privacy and the public's
right to safety. They establish proper limits and judicial
safeguards while empowering police to adequately respond to
situations that endanger public safety. The provisions are
responsive and fair.
An individual's right to compensation for lost or damaged
property is protected by the civil courts and there is no need to
change the present provisions of the criminal code.
For these reasons the Minister of Justice does not support these
amendments to the criminal code.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to put some
comments on record with respect to Bill C-245.
I am not at all surprised that the Minister of Justice does not
favour the legislation. That stands to reason given the almost
pathological pursuit of the gun registry which has now escalated
into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
In speaking to police officers and those around the country who
have the task of applying and enforcing the legislation, we are
told time and again that it will have no impact on public safety.
It is nevertheless a white elephant to which everyone in
government seems to be clinging.
I commend the hon. member for Lakeland for bringing the issue
forward to try to improve the ineffective, expensive and
discriminatory registry scheme in Canada. It is a bit like
trying to polish a rotten apple, if I could put it that way.
The law of the land is such that Canadians are, at a cost of
hundreds of millions of dollars, forced to enter into the
registry and yet some elements of it are particularly unfair. The
search and seizure aspect which the hon. member for Lakeland has
seized on should be of great concern to Canadians.
The Conservative Party very much supports the premise of the
hon. member's bill. It is necessary to protect gun owners who
have never committed any offence, been suspected of a crime or
used a firearm in an irresponsible fashion. Such individuals are
subject to search and seizure without a warrant under the new
provisions of the Firearms Act.
Accepting these amendments would prevent searches based on
hearsay or rumour and avoid developing a system akin to the
former Soviet Union where the KGB had neighbours watching
neighbours. Heaven forbid we adopt that type of paranoid justice
system. However that is what the current gun registry seems to
be leading toward.
1305
The bill would not hinder police forces in any way from
protecting the public. If they have hard evidence they can
simply get a warrant. I fully support the efforts of police in
protecting the public. However I have no difficulty in making
the standard higher when it comes to invading a person's home in
search of an obsolete gun from the second world war, a family
heirloom or a gun with sentimental value that someone has tucked
away in a trunk and not registered. That is the type of
legislation before the Canadian public today. It would be
intrusive into the lives of Canadians.
The enactment would affect part III of the criminal code as
enacted by section 139 of the Firearms Act. The purpose is to
remove the power in subsection 117.04(2) to enter, search and
seize without a warrant in cases where no offence has been
committed or is suspected to have been committed. It is a very
common sense, pragmatic provision that would do away with
potential abuses under the regulatory firearms scheme.
Provision is made for restitution for loss or damage resulting
from entry and search. The bill takes into account whether such
loss or damage was reasonable and necessary in light of evidence
collected and in light of the behaviour of the person on the
premises.
The bill is drafted to allow police officers to exercise their
duties responsibly and reasonably. Who in their right mind could
take issue with that? Why in any stretch of the imagination
would we not expect that reasonable standard to apply?
Subsection 117.04(2) of the act deals with search and seizure
without a warrant. For all intents and purposes the bill would
remove and repeal that subsection.
The bill would make other amendments. Subsection 117.04(4) of
the act would be amended to ensure that a peace officer who
executes a warrant returns to the judge who issued it and shows
the date it was executed, a description of items and documents
seized, the extent of the search and any property damage that
might have resulted.
Again these safeguards are aimed quite rightly at ensuring
police officers do not abuse their powers and simply stick to the
letter of the law and follow the warrant to its natural
conclusion.
The parliamentary secretary said civil courts are the proper
route for pursuing matters of property damage. That is nothing
short of ridiculous. The powers of the state and of the
Department of Justice would be brought to bear upon any
individual who made such a complaint.
Any time a person comes into conflict with a government the
result is delay. An army of lawyers and litigators would go to
great lengths to ensure the matter was not brought to court for
months if not years. The average citizen simply does not have
the resources for such a battle. The suggestion of the
parliamentary secretary is therefore bunk.
The gun registry is doomed, although it may take another five or
ten years to finally collapse under its own weight of costs and
regulatory red tape. The public, in its wisdom, will eventually
recognize that the scheme was cumbersome, costly, unworkable and
unwieldy.
Provisions to improve the legislation such as the one before us
are laudable. They are encouraging to members of the House who
see the legislation for what it is. However the reality is that
the government will not accept them.
Its pathological pursuit of this particular registry scheme is
becoming increasingly recognizable. This cumbersome, useless
registry is going to be with us until the government changes.
That message is becoming clear. Let us call it for what it is.
1310
The registry is not about safety nor crime control. As has
been stated time and time again, members of the Hell's Angels and
those who engage in crimes using firearms are not going to
participate.
What is this legislation all about? It is aimed at collectors,
duck hunters, farmers and fishermen who use firearms as part of
their trade or occupation to control pests or to destroy an
animal which may have been injured in a humane fashion. Those
are the individuals who will be affected.
There is a document in circulation entitled “Self-Defence in
Canada”. The Department of Justice acknowledges in that
document that firearms are used about 32,000 times a year for
self-protection from criminal activity. A 1997 a study by Gary
Mauser said, when animal attacks which had been prevented with
guns were added in, the annual self-defence numbers actually
doubled to 64,000 incidents where guns where used to save lives.
If suicides were removed, which are sadly generally considered to
be non-preventable, approximately 40 lives were saved for every
life lost by a firearm. These figures were based on the
government's own statistics.
In stating government statistics, it is important to recall that
seven out of ten statistics are wrong. However 44% of rural
households in Canada own firearms compared with 11% in Canadian
cities. Yet the violent crime rate in cities is 40% higher than
it is in rural Canada. We know that this legislation is aimed
almost entirely, or will have its effect played out, in rural
Canada.
In 1993 the RCMP commissioner at the time Philip Murray
complained in a letter to the minister that her department had
greatly overstated the number of gun crimes in Canada for that
year. Department figures showed that 623 gun related crimes had
occurred. Murray stated that the real number was actually 73.
These statistics have been used sadly to misinform Canadians
about the use of guns in Canada.
I commend the hon. member for Lakeland for bringing this matter
forward. It gives us another opportunity to put on the record
just how inane this legislation really is.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I want to add a couple of comments in support of the
member for Lakeland who has brought this bill forward. He has
brought a couple of good private member's bills forward in the
past. The one I particularly liked sought to get expensive tools
for mechanics deductible. I applaud him for doing that. This
bill is another example of a good bill that has been well
researched.
However the problem is that this bill is not votable. After
debate today it will be dropped from the order paper and nothing
will be done with it. All the work that has gone into preparing
this to bring it forward, all the legal angles that have been
looked at, goes for naught because it will not be voted on. Any
private member's initiative should be. As members of parliament
this is one tool we have to bring forward our issues.
The bill refers to Bill C-68 concerning gun laws. I want to
make sure people understand that a Canadian Alliance government
would repeal this law and replace it with a law that would
respect private property rights and target the criminal use of
firearms, not the lifestyles of law-abiding citizens.
The idea of a peace officer going into a person's home without
cause or without provocation to search the premises without a
warrant is something we should not have to discuss.
The criminal code does allow for such entry but it should not be
allowed on a routine basis.
1315
The most intrusive part of Bill C-68, which people feared and
opposed the most, was that a peace officer could enter into their
home and take their private property without reason. People
brought this issue to our attention time and time again. I am
glad this was brought forward for discussion because it should
not be a part of Canadian law. We only expect to hear things
like that happening in the Soviet Union or some place with a
dictatorship or a communist state.
If peace officers do enter our premises and, in the process of
their search, damage our property, whether it is the property
they are looking for or collateral property, they should provide
compensation. The member for Lakeland had examples of where this
has happened and where the people suffering the damage had no
recourse.
Those two issues, the unwarranted search of private property and
the lack of compensation for damage done during a search, needed
to be addressed in Bill C-68. Bill C-245 would do that.
However, the bill was not made votable so we will not be
standing in the House to show our support.
The only way we can show our support for the bill is to say a
few comments and get them on the record. We must also say again
that hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the gun
registry system and we see no end in sight to the cost of
registering every firearm in Canada. Nobody knows how many there
are. To intrude into the lives of private, law-abiding citizens
and not specifically target the criminal use of firearms is
wrong.
Bill C-68 needs to be repealed and replaced with comprehensive
legislation that deals with those issues.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to take my last five minutes.
I will begin by quoting Martin Niemoller, a famous German
theologian who lived from 1892 to 1984. It is a very famous
quote that we have all heard, but I ask every member in the House
to listen to it again. It reads:
When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore, I was
not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not
a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler
attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of
the unions and I was not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and
the Protestant church—and there was nobody left to be
concerned.
I would argue that many of the people who looked at this
so-called gun bill, Bill C-68, and its implementation, fought the
bill not because they cared about guns. Many people do not own
guns and do not care about guns. They fought what was
implemented with the bill. They knew it would be just one step
in a process that would lead to exactly what the theologian Martin
Niemoller said in his quote. If we do not protect the rights of
others, even if it is an issue that does not directly affect us,
the time will come when it is not possible under the system in
place to protect ourselves and our families.
I would argue that the changes to our law that were put in place
with the implementation of Bill C-68, the so-called gun bill,
were a dangerous step down the road to allowing that to happen.
1320
My bill, Bill C-245, would just take a part of Bill C-68, the
part dealing with unusual search and seizure, and say no, that is
dangerous, we are allowing unusual search and seizure here, and
for what? What is wrong with the provisions already in the
criminal code that deal with search and seizure?
It is a real threat to the individual. It is truly an issue
that does lead down that path. I argue that such is the case and
that is why I brought the bill forward.
The Canadian Alliance, when we become the government, would
revoke all those changes that were put in place with Bill C-68.
That includes the registry. That includes the need for a person
to register guns. Even if a person is a collector, the law
requires a person to register every gun. That also includes the
section on search and seizure, which we believe is unreasonable,
as we have argued all along.
All we want to do is put in place reasonable measures to ensure
that we are not going to move one step further down the road to a
point where we no longer have the power to stop government from
infringing on our rights. I would argue that for that reason,
that reason alone, even members of the government who implemented
Bill C-68, the gun bill, should start working with the members on
this side of the House and with Canadians across the country to
change that bill. It was bad law when it was implemented and it
is bad law now. I believe that quite a large majority of
Canadians no longer support it. I would argue that a majority
did not support it at the time it was implemented. There are
some good studies to back that up. The Conservative member who
spoke referred to one of those studies.
Unfortunately, my bill never will go to a vote because of our
private members' procedures in the House. That has to be
changed. Every private member's bill should be votable. I have
done a lot of work on the bill and taxpayers have paid a lot of
money to hire legal counsel to help me draft it. I believe the
action in the bill is supported by a majority of people across
the country, certainly by a large number of people. We could
debate it and talk about that. We could have a vote in the
House.
Madam Speaker, that is what should have happened. The best I
can do is bring this to the attention of the public in this way.
I think it does have an impact.
I thank the House for this time and I look forward to some
action in the future to help fix the bad law that was put in
place with the enactment of Bill C-68.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for
the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
As the motion has not been designated a votable item, the order
is dropped from the order paper.
[Translation]
It being 1.25 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.23 p.m.)