37th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 088
CONTENTS
Friday, September 28, 2001
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Governor General's Performing Arts
Awards |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis,
Lib.) |
|
|
National Memorial Day |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton
Centre-East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Herbert Homer |
|
|
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
National Memorial Day |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West,
Lib.) |
|
|
International Translation
Day |
|
|
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc
(Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.) |
|
|
G-8 Summit |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
National Family Week |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West,
Lib.) |
|
|
St. Lawrence River |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras
(Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Chris Egan |
|
|
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut,
Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Pierre Elliott Trudeau |
|
|
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry,
Lib.) |
|
|
Infrastructure |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP) |
|
|
Economic Development Agency of
Canada |
|
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière,
BQ) |
|
|
Pierre Elliott Trudeau |
|
|
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West,
Lib.) |
|
|
Tropical Storm
Gabrielle |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West,
PC) |
|
|
Big Brothers and Big
Sisters |
|
|
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston,
Lib.) |
|
|
Human Rights |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott
(Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
International Aid |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle,
NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle,
NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Air Canada |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
(Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
(Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc
(Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Airline Safety |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Airline Safety |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval
Centre, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval
Centre, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Sudan |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott
(Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott
(Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Porcupine Caribou |
|
|
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the
Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Firearms Registry |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides,
BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Banks |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Housing |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Adjournment
Proceedings |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue,
BQ) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Oral Question
Period |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
House of Commons
Calendar |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
First Nations Governance Review
Act |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Census Records |
|
|
Mr. Murray Calder
(Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order
Paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid
Laurier Day Act |
|
|
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval
Centre, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, PC/DR) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to, bill read
the second time and referred to a committee)
|
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Friday, September 28, 2001
Speaker: The Honourable Peter
Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
(1000)
[English]
Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act
Hon. Paul Martin (for the Minister for International
Trade) moved that Bill C-32, an act to implement the Free Trade
Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic
of Costa Rica, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address Bill
C-32 which would implement the Canada-Costa Rica free trade
agreement.
This agreement is an important step forward on several
levels. To begin with, the success of this endeavour clearly demonstrates that
free trade agreements can be negotiated between larger and smaller economies.
That bodes well for the future of the free trade area of the
Americas.
At the same time, this agreement will open up a new
market with exciting potential for Canadian exporters. It also includes
precedent setting chapters in the areas of trade facilitation and competition
policy.
The Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement includes
side agreements on the environment and labour that are an important improvement
on those found in earlier agreements.
I am especially pleased that we have concluded an
agreement with Costa Rica, sometimes called the Switzerland of Central America.
As a country of some 3.9 million citizens with no military and longstanding,
democratic institutions, Costa Rica has been an important beacon of stability
in Central America. With a large percentage of its budget devoted to education
and health care, Costa Rica's future looks very bright.
Canada and Costa Rica share similar political cultures,
placing primacy on respect for the rule of law, democracy, respect for human
rights and the environment. Our relationship with Costa Rica has been one of
longstanding co-operation, trust and mutual benefit. Formal trade relations
between our two countries date back more than 50 years to a bilateral
commercial agreement concluded in 1950. Since then our relationship has
developed steadily. A free trade agreement will only make it
stronger.
Both countries' citizens will be able to share in the
prosperity that freer trade creates. Already our bilateral trade with Costa
Rica has seen an average annual growth of over 6% in the last five years with a
7% increase in exports and a 5% increase in imports. The FTA will accelerate
this growth.
Although our bilateral trading relationship is small,
approximately $270 million, this number is rising rapidly. Indeed, there was a
25% jump in our exports in the year 2000. It is also worth mentioning that we
have invested about $500 million in Costa Rica.
Canadians are quick to seize an opportunity which could
explain the enthusiastic response to the extensive consultations that were
concluded regarding this initiative. The response from Canadians was strong and
indicated support for pursuing an FTA with Costa Rica. It should also be noted
that a significant number of small and medium sized enterprises expressed an
interest in such an agreement. For them, numbers like $270 million, our
bilateral trade with Costa Rica last year, are very large indeed. Their support
is not surprising considering that there are considerable opportunities in the
Costa Rican market for many Canadian goods, including automotive products,
prefabricated buildings, some fish products and a number of agricultural
products.
The improved access we will gain with this FTA will
give Canadian businesses an edge in Costa Rica, particularly over foreign
competitors who do not have preferential access to the Costa Rican market. As
our businesses that benefited from preferential access through the Canada-Chile
FTA could tell us, getting into a market first matters.
The agreement will include immediate elimination of
Costa Rican tariffs on most Canadian industrial exports. It is expected that
over 90% of Canada's current agriculture and agri-food exports to Costa Rica
will realize market access benefits.
Canada and Costa Rica believe that a commitment to
environmental and labour co-operation along with the effective enforcement of
domestic laws should go hand in hand with trade liberalization. That is why, in
addition to the FTA, two complementary co-operation agreements on the
environment and labour were negotiated in parallel.
These parallel agreements are practical and reflect the
scope of our relationship with Costa Rica.
(1010)
They are also designed to promote values shared by both
countries, such as the rule of law and sustainable development.
Considering the benefits I have mentioned, as well as
many others, it is not surprising that free trade enjoys widespread support in
this country. As I am sure everyone in the House knows, to the chagrin of some
I might add, the vast majority of Canadians, more than 70% in fact, support
freer trade. They recognize that increased trade is a prerequisite for economic
growth and Canada's continued prosperity and social well-being.
The statistics demonstrate that this is true. In the
year 2000 Canada's exports of goods and services represented over 45% or almost
half of our GDP, a substantially higher proportion than that of our major
trading partners. This share is up from 43% in 1999 and up considerably from
just 28% in 1990.
Some 80% of the over two million new jobs created since
the government took office in 1993 can be attributed to our increased trade.
That means that one in every three jobs in Canada is now linked directly to our
success in international trade. One in every three jobs is directly related to
our success in international trade. That is so important that it bears
repeating.
Most of our exports are now high value-added goods and
services: telecommunications, aerospace, software, environmental technologies
and other areas of the new economy.
Many Canadian companies, including small and medium
sized firms and their employees, depend on trade for their growth and success.
Trade puts money in the pockets of Canadians who teach in our schools, work in
our factories and run our hospitals. As well, Canadian consumers and producers
can obtain a broader choice of cheaper and better goods and services through
trade. To put it simply, trade translates into better and higher paying jobs
and increased opportunity and prosperity for all Canadians.
I would like to turn now to the importance of new WTO
negotiations which have been the subject of increased attention and some
concern over the past few days. Given the growing importance of trade to the
Canadian economy, it is obviously in our interest to have clearly understood
and widely accepted rules to ensure that we are not left subject to the whims
of larger and more powerful economies.
A rules based trading system also gives Canadian
companies access to larger markets abroad, while at home these companies can
take advantage of global economies of scale and maintain or increase employment
in their communities. Canada's continued prosperity depends on an open and
healthy global economy. That is why we strongly support the launch of new WTO
negotiations.
Although differences over an expanded negotiating
agenda remain, most WTO members are seeking a launch of new negotiations at the
next ministerial meeting scheduled to take place in November in Doha, Qatar. In
Canada's view, expanded negotiations should improve access to emerging world
markets and ensure trade rules keep pace with changes in technology and
business practices.
We are working closely with our trading partners,
including the United States, the EU, Japan and key developing countries to
build support for new negotiations.
WTO members have many challenging issues left to
resolve before Doha, but I believe, with political will on all sides, we can
make good progress in bridging the differences among members. A new round
offers our best hope to gain access to dynamic new markets and to both expand
and strengthen the rules based system which has worked so well for
Canada.
I would also like to say that in light of the tragic
events that took place recently in the United States, I firmly believe that it
is more important now than ever to pursue the goal of worldwide trade
liberalization.
Bob Zoellick, the United States trade representative,
has recently stated that trade reinforces openness, opportunity, democracy and
compassion. I think Canadians overwhelmingly endorse that statement. I believe,
as he does and as does the Minister for International Trade, that the WTO
meeting in Doha should proceed so that the world trading system can continue to
promote international growth, development and openness.
(1015)
The many benefits of free trade are evident on a
regional level. Canada's continued engagement with regional trade agreements
such as NAFTA and more recently the FTAA are critical to our collective
economic prosperity and social well-being. With a combined population of 800
million people and a GDP of some $17 trillion, the Americas is one of the
fastest growing markets in the world in terms of consumers and growth in per
capita income.
The FTAA represents an historic opportunity to unite
the countries of the hemisphere in a comprehensive free trade area that would
contribute to job creation and growth throughout the region, including Canada.
That is one of the reasons we are enthusiastic supporters of the FTAA
negotiations now under way and why Canada continues to play an active
leadership role in the negotiations.
The FTAA would create greater prosperity throughout the
entire region. Poorer countries of the hemisphere would have the opportunity
not only to improve their economic situations through trade and investment but
to begin to address the real problems of poverty, crime, environmental
degradation, threats to democracy and human rights.
I will quote from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's
report to the preparatory committee for the high level international
intergovernmental event on financing for development.
The secretary general was speaking of the important
benefits of freer trade to less developed and developing countries which are
struggling to enjoy the benefits we in Canada and other countries enjoy. This
is exactly what he said:
There is now widespread acceptance
that, in the long run, the expansion of international trade and integration
into the world economy are necessary instruments for promoting economic growth
and reducing and eradicating poverty...Estimates of the potential gains in
developing countries from a variety of liberalization measures range from $100
to $150 billion. There are thus large gains to be captured by developing
countries from continued liberalization in goods markets. |
I have heard it argued by a minority of Canadians and a
minority of members of the House that free trade is somehow bad for the poorer
countries of the world. They argue that it is a trick meant to take advantage
of poor nations while benefiting only wealthier countries like Canada and the
United States.
Many of my colleagues and I sat in the Chamber and
heard the prime minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, state the same
sentiments as the UN secretary general. He said we must challenge false
accusations about liberalized and globalized freer trade. He said that in his
view as prime minister of a major country freer trade is fundamental to helping
poorer nations develop their economies.
Those were not popular statements with a minority of
Canadians and some members of parliament on the far left. Nonetheless the facts
support them. An independent person like Kofi Annan, whose statement I quoted,
cannot be dismissed as someone who does not understand the reality of the
global trading system. Poorer countries of the world stand to gain immeasurably
by liberalized and globalized trade if we go about it in a careful and fair
minded way. That is what Canada is strongly committed to.
Canada is also committed to pursuing technical
assistance programming for the Caribbean and Central America to help countries
build their capacities for trade, investment and financial stability. At the
same time, Canadians have invested $54.8 billion in the nine NAFTA countries of
the Americas. Canadian investment in those countries increased sixfold over the
past decade. This means that more Canadian money is flowing into South and
Central America and the Caribbean.
(1020)
The Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement is a symbol
of our long term commitment to the hemisphere. It will help advance
negotiations leading to the free trade area of the Americas. The agreement will
provide much needed insight into how to address the needs of smaller and more
vulnerable regional economies.
In the end our efforts to liberalize trade on the
multilateral, regional, and, as in the case of Costa Rica, bilateral level will
all lead to the same goal: a more open and rules based trading system which
will benefit all economies and nations of the world, a system in which there
are only winners and no losers. That is what Canada is strongly committed to.
Such a result would greatly benefit the people of Canada and people around the
world.
I sincerely hope members of the House will support the
legislation. Concerns have been expressed about it already, even by some of my
colleagues. We are quite prepared to hear and address those concerns. However
let us make no mistake. Canada is a free trading nation. We stand by that and
support Bill C-32.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate today on
Bill C-32 which gives considerable detail to expanding free trade. I will set
out a preamble to my comments today and say that in general members of my party
and I are supportive of free trade. It is in fact our party policy.
We have another adjective we use with respect to trade.
Trade should not only be free, that is free from tariffs, countervailing duties
and all those things. It should also be fair. That is unfortunately where the
Liberal government often fails. It is imperative that we vigorously defend
Canadian industries.
The government does not have a good record for doing
that with other commodities, including agricultural commodities. The government
has often entered into agreements without enough forethought about the
implications. As a result it backs itself into a corner and we in the country
suffer enormously.
I cannot help but digress to the whole question of
western Canadian farmers and the tariffs and controls the government has put on
grain marketing over the years. Canadian farmers are not able to market their
product at the best price. Instead the government controls it. It is almost an
inverse Zellers' law. Zellers says the lowest price is the law. The Government
of Canada has told farmers the worst deal for them is the law. That is
unfortunate.
The government is making the same error with Bill C-32
in that it is not giving enough thought to the long term effects. There are a
few things we ought to be aware of. Bill C-32 would expand free trade with
Costa Rica. It outlines a 10 year plan. Some tariffs would be reduced in stages
over 10 years and others would come into play rapidly.
It should be noted that we already have a free trade
agreement with Chile. There is also NAFTA which is about seven years old. The
purpose of these free trade agreements is to give Canadian producers better
access to foreign markets and give our trading partners abroad better access to
our market.
A problem arises. Canada for some reason has gone ahead
of all the other countries in the agreement by being the only country to refuse
to substantially subsidize its producers. All the other countries subsidize, in
some cases very richly, their producers of agriculture and food products.
Canada is way down the list, almost at zero. When it comes to sugar producers,
subsidies from the Canadian government are essentially zero. Yet the other
countries subsidize them.
How are we to compete? It is impossible. That is common
sense. It should not escape Liberal members of the House and the Liberal
government.
(1025)
If there is another country competing with our
producers and its producers are being substantially subsidized over and above
what Canadian producers are, that puts our guys at a huge disadvantage. It is
as if we were to enter a race and we were to say to our athletes that we would
like them to carry an extra 50 pounds. I guess I already have mine and that is
why they do not enter me into Olympic races, because it is a bit of a
disadvantage.
Canadian producers are operating under this
disadvantage. They are working against a trade barrier of price because of the
fact that producers in other countries like the United States and those in
Central America substantially subsidize their producers. As a result, our
people have to be very efficient to compete, which they are, but in many cases
they lose out on the fight.
We should be aware that 80% of the products that Costa
Rica exports to Canada, and we are talking about fruits and vegetables, coffee
and coal, already at this stage enter Canada duty free. Therefore the market in
Canada is already largely open to Costa Rica. Canada of course is now looking
to expand its market into Costa Rica, so in that sense it is a good initiative
because if it already has so much duty free access to our market then it only
makes sense that we should negotiate with Costa Rica to remove its tariffs to
give Canadian producers access to that market.
Unfortunately this is done sector by sector. Sometimes
we fail to recognize that when we are in a trading agreement like this we must
have all of the food on the platter at the same time. We cannot make a deal
commodity by commodity and then in the end land up with a few commodities left
that were not negotiated, because consequently we are unable, because we have
lost our bargaining position, to get a really good deal for our own
producers.
It just so happens that in the year 2000 Canada
exported to Costa Rica approximately $86 million worth of goods. In that same
year we imported from Costa Rica $183 million worth. At this stage, then, we
have basically a net loss in income as a country because of the fact that while
Costa Rica spends $86 million a year here we spend $183 million there. That is
fine because it allows us to bring into this country products which we need and
which are saleable here, but we must recognize that those products are also
competing with those of Canadian producers and Canadian processors.
One of the areas of much concern to us as a party is
the impact on the sugar industry. One of the fond memories that I have of being
a youngster growing up in Saskatchewan, and which young people of today would
not have any knowledge of at all, is that there used to be metal pails of
Rogers Golden Syrup. It is probably the best syrup in the world. If I recall
correctly most of the sugar beets that produced that syrup were grown in
southern Alberta and some in British Columbia. If I am not mistaken, the
processing refineries for this sugar were actually in eastern Canada, in
Ontario and Quebec. At any rate, we had this syrup and it was a wonderful
product. In fact I would hasten to surmise that perhaps Rogers Golden Syrup has
had a significant contribution in making me into the man I am today, and I mean
that in a humorous sense of that word, because we used that syrup a lot in our
home.
(1030)
Rogers syrup came in little 10 pound pails that when
empty became our lunch buckets that we carried to school. Nowadays this of
course would never be done. Nowadays the youngsters have designer lunch kits.
However in those days we were not different from our neighbours. We were poor
and we made use of everything we had. When the pails were empty they became our
lunch buckets and we walked to school carrying these pails with Rogers Golden
Syrup written on them. They contained our sandwiches or whatever our mother
produced for us for the day.
We can see that the history of the Canadian sugar
industry is a long one, not that I am terribly old, but we are talking about 50
years ago at least. Even at that time the syrup was a wonderful, very good,
high quality product.
At this stage, as far as I know, Costa Rica does not
have any substantial amount of output in actually refining and processing its
sugar. This means very simply that the tariff on sugars, which is designed to
protect the market in whatever country, is very one sided. In fact, the United
States and most Latin American countries have an import tariff on their sugar
ranging anywhere from 50% to 160%. In other words, when we export that product
our people have to be very efficient in order to compete in those markets since
there is an automatic price added to our product as it crosses a
border.
My biggest complaint about Bill C-32 is that there is
not nearly a rapid enough or substantial enough removal of those tariffs that
tend to inhibit the flow of our product into the other countries. As a matter
of fact, knowing the way the Liberal government operates I can see that in the
future, perhaps under CIDA or some other of our other wonderful plans, we would
actually be helping Costa Rica build a processing plant so that it could
process its sugar there and export it to Canada duty free. If we try to do that
with our product when sending it there, we will have a tariff to pay in various
stages for at least 10 years. There is no guarantee, as I see it in the bill,
that the tariff would ever be removed.
Why would we not negotiate on this issue in such a way
that it is fair for Canadians instead of lopsided? We may have all sorts of
altruistic motives in this matter. Perhaps we want to help the Costa Rican
people. I have no problem with that. Sure, let us help them, let us trade with
them, but if we are to compete let us compete on a level playing
field.
I hasten to point out that this agreement could become
a template for future agreements with some of the other Central American
countries. If we do not fix this problem, it will be embedded in the agreements
with countries like Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras. Each of
those countries not only has some considerable capacity to refine their sugar
and to export it, but they also have large subsidies.
For the life of me I cannot see why we would not, while
we are negotiating these tariffs, also make sure that we do not repeat the
errors that we made with wheat agreements. We should say very clearly that if
we remove tariffs they must remove their subsidies. We did not do this with
wheat. That is why the United States, still subsidizing its farmers
substantially more than Canada, is a very unfair trading partner with respect
to the sale and the movement of Canadian products.
(1035)
In Canada with respect to wheat we have the barrier of
the wheat board which applies, by the way, only to the prairie provinces. Go
figure that one. Why should wheat producers in Ontario or Quebec or Atlantic
Canada be able to sell their grain without going through the wheat board? If
the wheat producers happen to be in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta the
mighty thumb of the federal government is on top of them. If they try to make a
move they go to jail. That is scary. We have actually had our own government,
not the importing country, not the United States, put our own farmers in jail
because of their attempts to sell their own products at a price that is better
and more immediate as opposed to what the wheat board offers.
In negotiating a free trade agreement with the United
States did we insist that it remove its subsidies? No. Consequently it has
them. Consequently our farmers are operating at a disadvantage.
Now we have Canada making this agreement with Costa
Rica and looking ahead at some of the other countries with which we will
undoubtedly be processing a trade agreement . We are in favour of that, but we
had better make sure that we put all of the elements on the negotiating table,
not just the tariffs and the free trade. Let us also very clearly specify and
demand as a condition that the subsidization be included in those negotiations
and that the subsidization be removed. How can we compete?
A number of years ago I had a friend who sold one brand
of imported Japanese vehicles in Canada. Along came another importer from
Korea. The Canadian government for some reason exempted the Korean
manufacturer's automobiles from some of the import tariffs. As a result it
became a very unfair playing field, just because of the negotiations of the
government.
We need to make sure that all Canadians in these trade
agreements are treated fairly.
We should also note that right now, to the best of my
knowledge, every country in the Americas, Central America and South America,
and including the United States, subsidizes its farmers except Canada. At least
to put it this way, their subsidies are much higher in proportion. We are
remiss in our duties to our own people if we do not make sure that these
tariffs are not stacked against us in view of those duty free
agreements.
I would also like to say that there is a considerable
movement of agricultural goods around the country and it is so important to
Canada. It is my belief that approximately 80% of our food production is
destined for export, so we had better have good trade agreements. We had better
have fair tariffs. We had better make sure that our producers are
protected.
As a matter of fact, our economic well-being is largely
dependent on the export of those agricultural products. For every $100 worth of
food that Canadian farmers produce we Canadians consume only about $20 worth of
it and $80 of it goes to feed people in other parts of the world. That is
great. We should be very proud of that.
I happen to come from an agricultural community. I grew
up on a farm in Saskatchewan. To this day my brother farms on the family farm
and on more land he has added. We often speak in our family of the contribution
that we have made in providing food not only for Canadians but also for people
around the world. One of the great things that some of our people have done in
Saskatchewan, and I think this happens in other parts of the country as well,
is that farmers have actually given some of their surplus as a donation to some
of the third world countries where people are starving because of a lack of
food when we have so much.
(1040)
It behooves our government to make sure that we have a
market for the food we produce for export, but it has to be done
fairly.
We had a considerably lengthy and interesting debate
last night on agriculture. I do not think we adequately recognize that a good,
solid, secure food source is a very important base of our national security. If
we were ever to lose our agriculture industry, and I mean all agriculture, our
food producing sources, the farmers and fishermen, and our infrastructure to
process food, we would suddenly no longer enjoy the security of a plentiful and
safe food supply.
It is incumbent upon on us as a country, especially in
these troubling days, to make sure that our producers and processors can
survive and be strong economically and in their businesses. We need to make
sure we do not jeopardize that in any way.
I am inclined right now to vote against the bill simply
because it is not good enough. I absolutely love the idea of free trade and
being able to export our food around the world. I love the idea that we can
provide it to those who do not have as much we do. However let us make sure
that we do not hobble our own farmers. We should not attach a weight to their
ankles.
This is just a small diversion. In the agreement dairy,
poultry, egg and beef products are excluded from this present provision.
Presumably that will come at some future time in some future agreement, but it
is not included now.
I think I have laid my case in front of the House and
the Canadian people. It is very important that in this instance our government
be given a message. It should go back to the bargaining table. It should
strengthen the protection of our sugar industry. It is not there now. Unless we
change that, I cannot vote in favour of the bill because of that very serious
and fatal flaw.
(1045)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, before beginning, I ask for the House's
unanimous consent to share my time with the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
The Deputy Speaker:
Could the hon. member please tell me if he wishes to
split the 40 minutes allocated to him into two periods of 20
minutes?
Mr. Loubier: Yes, exactly.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot have the unanimous consent of the House to share his
speaking time with his colleague for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Yvan Loubier:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for agreeing to my
proposal to share our speaking time on this important debate.
Indeed, this is an important debate. Each time Canada
signs a free trade agreement with another country, it is, in theory, excellent
news, because when these agreements are carefully negotiated, and especially
when we have been able to have some input, they pave the way for improved
bilateral or multilateral trade.
These free trade agreements and multilateral agreements
also contain a certain amount of discipline, which is quite welcome, given that
over the last 50 years we have experienced some extremely turbulent times in
international trade, with subsidy wars and price wars, particularly in the
agricultural sector, as my colleague from the Alliance mentioned
earlier.
Therefore, in theory, we can only applaud each time an
agreement is signed to civilize trade, to ensure that there are clear rules,
and to improve trade, employment and investment opportunities.
There are, however, three problems in this agreement
between Canada and Costa Rica. Despite our support of it in principle, these
three problems are worth raising. Perhaps the government, if it is open, if it
as smart as it claims to be, could remedy them readily.
The first problem is the lack of transparency as far as
the negotiation of free trade agreements is concerned. This applies to the
agreement between Canada and Costa Rica, it applies to all other agreements, of
which there have been many in recent years.
The second problem concerns the provisions relating to
investments. We have frequently criticized these provisions within NAFTA and
now we find them again in the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and
Costa-Rica.
The third, one that crops up every time there are
negotiations, even for the entire 50 years there have been negotiations for
GATT, the WTO, and bilateral agreements, concerns the international
distribution of the sugar market. A dangerous precedent was set with
negotiations between the Canadian and Costa Rican governments.
As far as the first problem is concerned, that is the
lack of transparency and a certain lack of democratic spirit on the
government's side, people are becoming somewhat annoyed by it.
On the one hand, we have a government that claims to be
democratic and, particularly since the dramatic events of September 11 in the
United States, a defender of democracy, freedom and democratic institutions.
Yet every time there are negotiations on free trade
agreements, bilateral or multilateral, or any other—and their numbers are
increasing with each passing year—parliament, the direct expression of our
democratic system, is not involved.
And every time an attempt is made, particularly by my
colleague from Joliette, who is the Bloc Quebecois trade critic, to introduce
bills here to ensure that parliament is consulted at every stage of trade
treaty negotiations, every time those bills have been introduced, they have
been roundly rejected by the Liberals.
An hon. member: Disgraceful.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: In other words, the Liberal
members—each of them—who claim to represent the public, do not even want the
public involved. And yet, the agreements increasingly concern, not only
international trade and the economic terms of trade, but culture, services,
education and even health. These are things that affect the public
directly.
(1050)
So, how can they have the gall to deny us the right to
properly, honestly and vigorously represent the public who put us here in this
House? It is disgraceful. And it is not for lack of trying to teach our Liberal
colleagues the values of democracy, the fact that parliament is the ultimate
symbol of these values and that parliamentarians ought to be included at all
stages of negotiation.
Five times my party, and the member for Joliette
specifically, introduced bills calling for the participation of the public and
MPs at all stages of the negotiation process for any trade agreement. There are
many. In 1998, to give an idea of what is involved, Canada signed 44 agreements
with different countries. This year, some 50 agreements are expected to be
signed. This is not insignificant.
When government talks of globalization and says it will
increasingly determine the direction national governments take and affect our
daily lives, the least if could do would be to include the public and, first
and foremost, parliamentarians.
The first bill introduced by the Bloc Quebecois
concerned this. It asked as well that all treaties be tabled in the House for
debate, prior to their ratification, specifically to avoid the government's
presenting flawed agreements, as we have seen, containing things that do not
suit the majority of the people and that require more work.
No one is going to convince me that the Minister for
International Trade, despite what he claims, is the source of all truth.
However, he, without consulting anyone, decides with a few officials what they
are going to involve the Canadian and Quebec public in by signing this sort of
treaty.
In the private members bills we introduced in this
House, we asked that the provinces be consulted as well. Why? Because,
increasingly, as I mentioned earlier, international treaties do not involve
just the economy and trade. They concern education, health and all other
services provided to the public. The areas of jurisdiction involved are often
exclusively those of Quebec and the other provinces.
The provinces then find themselves in a bind, because a
single minister along with a few public officials negotiated, on their behalf,
international treaties that concern their jurisdictions. They find themselves
in a bind because they have to implement these agreements, and moral pressure
is exerted on them if they decide not to do so. If we find this acceptable,
then it follows that anything goes in this parliament.
Whenever such bills were introduced, we always asked
for transparency with a capital T. We asked for public hearings on the progress
of negotiations, we asked that the public be kept informed of these
negotiations and of their content, and we asked that the impact of these
negotiations on the daily lives of people be explained. But the Liberals
rejected all our requests for transparency, in a negotiation process that ought
normally to be open and accessible to the public.
What does the government have to hide? What are the
government and the pedantic minister up to, when they show us an agreement
after it has been negotiated, signed and approved and tell us “Vote in favour,
all you have to do is approve it. This is your only role in this parliament”?
The members who sit here, who represent Quebecers and Canadians, are only here
to rubber-stamp things. We are all here to approve the agreement once
everything has been negotiated without our input and without knowing the terms
of the agreement before it is signed by Canada and the other country. This is
unacceptable. Things are worse since 1993. The process is even less transparent
since the Liberals came to office in 1993.
(1055)
But the number of agreements is growing; more and more
of them are being signed every year. And this trend will continue, because
globalization is now a given. It is in our interests to negotiate agreements
with all countries of the world.
It seems to me that it would be easy to have a little
more transparency, to be guided by a stronger sense of democracy than that
which has guided this government in the hundreds of international agreements it
has signed since 1993.
We all remember what happened with the MAI, the
multilateral agreement on investment. For two years, an agreement on investment
was negotiated, behind closed doors, between the world's richest nations, the
OECD nations. Had the principles in this agreement not been condemned by Lionel
Jospin, in France, and by ordinary citizens, who mounted a campaign over the
Internet, which is now a global link, no one would have known a thing about it
until after it was ratified by 28 OECD nations. This multilateral agreement on
investment would have been disastrous.
It would have meant that governments worldwide would
have had their hands tied by transnationals, by multinationals, which have no
interest in the common good. As for investments, these companies would have
controlled all the countries who signed this terrible agreement.
Yet the Minister for International Trade told us that
he would consult Quebecers and Canadians. As recently as last January, he said
that consultation of Canadians is an ongoing process, which is an integral part
of Canadian trade policy.
Where is this consultation? Where is this consultation
at all stages of the process of negotiations with countries with whom Canada is
signing trade agreements? Where is this consultation with parliament, whose
members are democratically elected to represent the people of Quebec and of
Canada?
We are used to the minister doing the opposite of what
he says. At some point, he is no longer taken seriously; he no longer has any
credibility. What are his statements and his promises worth when, a few months
later, what happens is the complete opposite of what was said in the House?
Where is his sense of dignity? Where is his conscience as a member, if he has
one? So much for investments.
Since I see that my time is running out, I will resume
after oral question period.
The Deputy Speaker:
I thank the hon. member for his co-operation. Moving to
Statements by Members. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[Translation]
Governor General's Performing Arts
Awards
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this week, our governor general released
the names of the recipients of the Governor General's Performing Arts
Awards.
These awards celebrate Canadian performers who have
made an exceptional contribution to the cultural life of Canada. Each year,
they are presented to Canadian artists who have been nominated by members of
their own performing arts community. They are selected from six fields:
theatre; dance; classical music and opera; popular music; film; and
broadcasting.
This year marks the 10th anniversary of these
performing arts awards, and six great artists have been selected.
[English]
I know members will join with me in extending our warm
congratulations to Anne-Claire Poirier, Diane Dufresne, Christopher Plummer,
Mario Bernardi, Max Ferguson and Evelyn Hart.
They have all brought us both inspiration and enjoyment
over the years, and as we celebrate with them we thank them for their
outstanding contribution.
* * *
National Memorial Day
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton
Centre-East, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the 24th Annual Canadian Memorial Service
for Police and Peace Officers killed in the performance of duty will be
conducted this Sunday on the steps of Parliament Hill.
Police and Peace Officers National Memorial Day is held
on the last Sunday of September each year. This is a day to show respect for
those honourable custodians of law, order and public peace who paid the supreme
price with their lives while in service to the citizens of Canada.
The motto “To Serve and Protect” well describes their
daily duty. The memorial on Parliament Hill attests to the tragic toll in
personal human sacrifice adhering to this duty.
I am sure I speak for all parliamentarians when I say
that our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of those who
should be remembered not only this Sunday but all year long.
* * *
(1100)
Herbert Homer
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all my colleagues I extend my
deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Herbert Homer, one of 26
Canadians who perished on September 11 when his airplane was hijacked and
crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center.
Todd Burke, a friend, constituent, and a cousin to
Herbert Homer, is one of many family members from across Canada deeply affected
by this tragic loss. Todd had talked to his cousin only a few days before his
death. They were looking forward to a family reunion in Ottawa before this
brutal and senseless act of violence took away so many innocent
lives.
The family asked me to share this moment with the House
to remember Herbert Homer: a husband, father, son, brother, uncle, nephew,
cousin and friend. To paraphrase a quote attributed to several authors “I am in
every wind that blows and I am in the glitter of the snow. I died but I did not
go”.
Our deepest condolences go out to the Burke and Homer
families and their friends.
* * *
National Memorial Day
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, September 30, is Police and
Peace Officers National Memorial Day. The ceremony at the Canadian Police
Memorial Pavilion will recognize and honour the courage and sacrifice of
officers killed in the line of duty.
I personally recognize Ontario Provincial Police
officer Duncan MacAleese, my cousin, who was killed some years ago in the line
of duty. To his wife Dorothy and their three sons, Shawn, Tom and Ian, and to
my aunt, Ruby MacAleese, our deepest appreciation for their immense
sacrifice.
I take this moment to let these officers and their
families know that they are not forgotten and to give special acknowledgment to
the officers and firefighters that we all lost on September 11.
* * *
[Translation]
International Translation
Day
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc
(Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, next Sunday will be International
Translation Day. This year's theme is “Translation and Ethics--The ethical
commitment of professional translators”.
[English]
International Translation Day was inaugurated by UNESCO
and the International Federation of Translators. In today's global society
there is a growing demand for language professionals.
[Translation]
Personally, I would like to point out the importance of
the work done by the House of Commons translators.
[English]
Given this year's theme of translation and ethics, we
particularly recognize and appreciate the confidentiality and impartiality of
the House of Commons translators. Please join me in thanking all our language
professionals for their good work.
* * *
G-8 Summit
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, now that the G-8 summit in Kananaskis is
less than nine months away, security experts are calling out for the high
powered gathering to be relocated.
In all my research I have yet to come across a security
expert who feels that the isolation of Kananaskis is an asset in providing the
required security for the world leaders attending this summit. They have stated
that it would be foolhardy to hold a conference in such an isolated area since
it is virtually impossible to secure the forest and the mountains.
Since there is only one access route, there could
easily be bombs placed along the road as well as ambushes, just to name a few.
This does not even begin to touch upon the concerns of property owners after
seeing the violence of the protestors in Quebec and Italy.
My constituents are justifiably concerned that
protestors may destroy their homes since there are simply not enough security
personnel to cover such a vast area. I am asking and my constituents are
begging the Prime Minister to relocate this summit while time is still on his
side.
* * *
[Translation]
National Family Week
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today I would like to draw attention to
National Family Week, which will be October 1 to 7 this year. It is a week that
provides us with the opportunity to acknowledge the importance and vitality of
families in our society.
This year's theme is “Volunteering is a family affair.
Connect with Kindness”. This being the International Year of Volunteers, the
two part theme lets us call attention to the remarkable work of contributing to
family solidarity.
The family, the foundation of our society, represents
the roots of all Canadians. The events surrounding National Family Week will
emphasize just how important families are.
* * *
(1105)
St. Lawrence River
Mr. Bernard Bigras
(Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Environment Canada and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency published their 2001 report on
the state of the Great Lakes.
This report reveals that the water quality of the St.
Lawrence River is improving. Cleanup efforts are starting to yield
results.
However, as an ecosystem, the river is deteriorating.
On this subject, the report is disturbing. It reveals that wetland habitat
continues to deteriorate. Urban sprawl, farming activities and air pollution
still threaten the ability of plants and wildlife to renew
themselves.
While the state of the Great Lakes is stabilizing, the
St. Lawrence River watershed is particularly threatened. Some shoreline
wetlands have completely dried up as a result of human activity and numerous
bird and aquatic species are becoming endangered.
On behalf of all those who earn their living from the
St. Lawrence River, and particularly on behalf of future generations, I wish to
remind the House of how important it is that we urgently take action in order
to preserve one of our environmental treasures.
* * *
[English]
Chris Egan
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I too convey the sympathies of
Nunavummiut, the people of Nunavut, to all affected, and especially to the
family of Chris Egan and her brother who both perished in the south tower of
the World Trade Center on September 11 in New York City.
During the 20 years Chris Egan spent in Nunavut as a
nurse in Pond Inlet, Coral Harbour, Chesterfield Inlet and Rankin Inlet Chris
contributed to the quality of life by her energetic and positive involvement in
community activities such as the Girl Guides.
Arriving in Pond Inlet as a young nurse in the
seventies, Chris always vowed she would one day do her Ph.D. This goal was
attained by Chris in 1999. In keeping with her passion for the north, her
thesis was on Inuit women's perception of pollution.
As far away as we are, we too were touched by this
tragedy and many prayer services were held throughout Nunavut in support. The
hearts and thoughts of Nunavummiut are with the Egan family and all the
families of the victims of September 11.
* * *
National Security
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned about security at
our Canada-U.S. border. This week I received a shocking letter from a
constituent whose husband, a truck driver, was re-entering Canada from the U.S.
only hours after the tragic events of September 11. In her letter she states
the following startling facts:
My husband was not asked for any form
of identification, his country of residency, or his destination...and...the
crossing was only about 250 miles from the horrible tragedy unfolding in New
York City. |
My constituent's questions to the government are: Why
was this border crossing not asking the most basic identity questions before
allowing someone into our country and why are we not doing more to keep Canada
safe and secure?
In spite of what the Prime Minister says, Canadians are
concerned that Canada has become a safe haven for terrorists. It is high time
the government acted responsibly to ensure the safety of Canadians by moving
quickly with effective security measures and the much needed anti-terrorism
legislation.
* * *
[Translation]
Pierre Elliott Trudeau
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on September 28, 2000, Canada was stunned
by the death of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. One year later,
Canadians are still affected by this great loss.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau left an indelible mark on our
country. He shared his passion for Canada with each and every Canadian. He was
a man who fully explored his ideas and dreams. He strove for a just and modern
society in which everyone could thrive. He dreamed of a bilingual country that
would respect diversity, of a country that would make its name in the world by
defending liberty, peace and justice.
One year after his passing, it is fair to say that he
will continue to have a place in the memory and history of Canadians. We will
miss him for a very long time.
* * *
[English]
Infrastructure
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy is free falling into
a recession. We have not seen a week with so many job losses and falling stocks
since the early nineties. If ever there was a time that we needed a new
infrastructure program it is now.
A new infrastructure program would accomplish two
things. First, it would stimulate the economy by creating jobs and help avoid a
recession. Second, it would address the long overdue repair and improvement
that our national infrastructure desperately needs.
The Liberal government has been neglecting
infrastructure for years now and that neglect is being felt around the country.
In every province and territory we have highways that need improvement and
public water systems that are not up to the demand. Our crumbling
infrastructure must be improved.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party I call on the
government to stop standing idly by while our economy continues to sink. It is
time for a new comprehensive national infrastructure program.
* * *
(1110)
[Translation]
Economic Development Agency of
Canada
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the art of keeping secrets seems
increasingly to be the trademark of the Liberal government, and specifically
the Secretary of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec.
This week, a member of the Bloc asked the agency to
provide the details of grants it had given in her riding. The answer given by
the secretary of state's policy assistant was clear: this information was
confidential, and access to information was the only way to get additional
information.
The Bloc members are entitled to be informed of grants
to businesses in their ridings, especially when the grants come from the taxes
of Quebecers. This money does not belong to the Liberals and even less to the
Minister of National Revenue.
The office of the Secretary of State for the Economic
Development Agency of Canada is revealing itself increasingly to be a leviathan
where keeping secrets reigns supreme.
* * *
[English]
Pierre Elliott Trudeau
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a true
Canadian hero. One year ago today Canada lost Pierre Elliott
Trudeau.
Pierre Trudeau was an inspiration to an entire
generation of Canadians. He gave us the courage to believe that we could be
greater than we were. He dared us to dream.
Pierre Trudeau showed us that Canada was more than the
sum of its parts; that to aspire toward a just society was a noble and worthy
cause and that we really could all make a difference. His vision included all
Canadians, whether from the east, west, Ontario, Quebec or from foreign shores.
Indeed, many Canadians call this country home today because of him.
A year ago today Canadians shared their grief at the
loss of a man who helped us to see not what we were, but what we could
become.
Today I call on the House and on all Canadians to pay
tribute by remembering the vision and the passion that Pierre Elliott Trudeau
inspired in all of us.
* * *
Tropical Storm
Gabrielle
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West,
PC):
Mr. Speaker, tropical storm Gabrielle dumped 120
millimetres of rain on the Avalon Peninsula of Newfoundland within a few hours.
The result was severe flooding. Roads were washed away, sewers overflowed and
houses and businesses flooded. The city of St. John's declared a state of
emergency.
The province has established a disaster assistance
committee to deal with those affected. Municipal and provincial affairs
minister Oliver Langdon says he is certain Ottawa will come up with the lion's
share of a flood aid package, but to date no word has been received on federal
approval. What's the problem? Why is the government hesitating?
The province of Newfoundland, the city of St. John's,
businesses and individuals particularly need assistance now. Why does the
government not do something different for a change? Why does it not respond
quickly to this situation?
* * *
Big Brothers and Big
Sisters
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, September is Big Brothers and Big Sisters
Month.
Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Canada provides
mentoring programs to children in more than 300 communities across this
country. Most Canadians know at least one or two generous volunteers who give
their time and energy to ensure that a young person has a role model to look
up.
High school graduation rates among little brothers and
little sisters are 20% higher than the national average. Right now there are
over 10,000 young people matched with adults through this program.
I ask the House to join me in saluting the volunteers
whose efforts make such a significant difference in the lives of so many of our
young children in Canada.
* * *
Human Rights
Mr. Maurice Vellacott
(Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has been
shamefully silent about the crimes against humanity being committed in Sudan by
the brutal National Islamic Front regime.
Today the Ottawa Citizen indicates just how
involved in international terrorism the Sudanese regime has been. It has used
its embassy staff to raise funds for Osama bin Laden. It has given diplomatic
credentials to bin Laden's followers so they can travel anywhere in the world.
It has worked with bin Laden to manufacture chemical weapons for use on
civilians. It has fostered close working relationships between bin Laden's
followers and both Sudanese intelligence officers and high ranking Sudanese
military officers. It has used its military officers, working with al-Qaeda
members, to ship arms across the country of Sudan.
Also, CSIS documents say that for the past 10 years or
more, bin Laden operatives have used Canada as a support base for terrorizing
Americans. The CSIS report states that the group al-Jihad in Canada is part of
a co-ordinated international al-Jihad effort aimed at pursuing a terrorist
agenda.
The Canadian government should condemn the brutal
Sudanese regime. It is shameful that the Liberal government is turning a blind
eye.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
(1115)
[English]
Terrorism
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general has been loath to
admit that there is a Canadian connection to international terrorism. Now we
find that CSIS believes that al-Jihad has been operating in Canada in support
of bin Laden and his terrorist efforts.
Will the solicitor general fess up to the fact that
there is a Canadian connection?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have said to my hon. colleague many
times in the House, the web of terrorism reaches all democratic systems around
the world. The fact is that there is no evidence of any direct link between
Canada and the events of September 11.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that Canadians had to read
in their newspapers this morning that CSIS, the minister's own department, says
that al-Jihad is operating here in Canada.
Why do they have to learn from their morning newspapers
that there is a Canadian connection instead of from the minister who should
really be the one to tell them that we have these sorts of problems?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague is not just
trying to create fear. What I said is absolutely correct. There is no evidence
of a direct link between Canada and the events of September 11. Those are the
facts.
All measures that need to be taken and all leads that
need to be followed are followed by the RCMP and CSIS, and they are working
with their counterparts in the U.S. to make sure that the people responsible
for what took place on September 11 are brought to justice.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the briefing book says that and the
minister keeps saying it but CSIS says something different.
It has been 18 days since this terrible act of
terrorism and there has been no action on anti-terrorism legislation, no action
on air marshals and no action on tightening up our deportation
system.
What will it take for the government to really take
some action?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said, this country has taken a lot of
action with our security intelligence agency and the RCMP. We have taken steps
to strengthen our border and to fight terrorism fundraising.
We have also indicated quite clearly that any steps
that need to be taken to improve legislation will be taken.
* * *
Immigration
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, immigration officials have lost track of
27,000 people who were supposed to be deported. It is almost the equivalent to
the population of cities like Brandon or Charlottetown. It is the whole
population of Nunavut.
When will the minister put the resources into
enforcement so that we do not lose track of another 27,000
deportees?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's assertion that these
people have vanished into thin air is just simply false.
We know that people leave the country. We do not check
them as they leave. We know that others are deported, and last year we had the
highest number ever with well over 8,600 people who were deported.
Our number one priority for deportation is criminals.
Last year 1,700 were criminals but of the others, 5,700 were failed refugee
claimants.
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, immigration officials are saying that the
deportees would have a difficult time living in Canada without identification,
yet we have seen reports this week about how easy it is to forge identification
documents.
When will the security of Canadians be a priority for
the minister?
(1120)
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, by innuendo the member is suggesting that
failed refugee claimants pose a security threat. That is false. All failed
refugee claimants have had security screening. We will move as quickly as we
can.
I say to the member opposite that it was not long ago
that she was standing in the House making a statement urging me to allow failed
refugee claimants to remain in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
The Economy
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, according to Desjardins' economist Joëlle
Noreau, 10,000 jobs will be lost in the region of Montreal alone as a result of
the September 11 attacks.
In light of the global economic dowturn, the Chairman
of the Federal Reserve in the U.S., is considering investing $100 billion,
while the Quebec government announced that it will speed up its investments to
promote economic recovery.
At a time when other governments are taking action,
what is the federal government waiting for to take measures to restore
confidence?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, last week, the Governor of the Bank
of Canada lowered interest rates by 50 basis points. This is a very substantial
reduction that will certainly help our economy throughout the country.
At the same time, the government has taken measures,
including the infrastructure program and amendments and improvements to the
employment insurance program, to help Canada's unemployed and those who do need
help at this time.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister is referring to the situation
as it existed before the events of September 11, but things have since
changed.
The measures that he announced in his minibudget of
last fall are no longer adequate. The economy just took a nosedive, while the
government is enjoying a $10 billion surplus.
When will the government realize that the new economic
situation requires immediate new measures? When will the government finally
decide to act?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I regret but I must correct the hon.
member. The 50 basis point reduction in the Bank of Canada rate occurred last
week, that is after the September 11 events.
At the same time, the measures that were put in place
continue to work. The tax cuts continue to provide in excess of $17 billion to
the Canadian economy, and the infrastructure program remains in
effect.
In fact, we would really appreciate it if the Province
of Quebec were to co-operate with the Minister of National Revenue and with the
President of the Treasury Board to truly speed up the whole process.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in his speech to Liberal
backers, the Prime Minister asked Canadians to travel, buy cars and sign
mortgages.
But the government is refusing to act in a manner that
will help restore the confidence essential to economic recovery.
Does the Minister of Finance realize that the key to
economic recovery is confidence and that the government has a role to play in
restoring that confidence?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the confidence of
consumers is paramount, and this confidence is tied directly to the fiscal
integrity of their country.
The fact that the country has put its fiscal house in
order, that it has eliminated the deficit, and wishes to maintain that
position, the fact that the government is showing fundamental discipline, as
other governments are doing, is crucial to consumer confidence.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, restoring confidence will take more than
words; it will take action. The U.S. government is taking action; the Quebec
government is taking action, the French government has just announced
measures.
What additional specific action does the federal
government intend to take in the coming days to help boost the
economy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the Government of Quebec wants to boost
confidence, I would suggest that it stop talking about a recession.
* * *
[English]
International Aid
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Finance. The United Nations yesterday said that one million people in
Afghanistan may die of starvation by the end of the year unless they receive
emergency aid. The United Nations has also called upon the world community to
come up with an aid package of $875 million.
Could the Minister of Finance tell the House what
Canada will contribute to this emergency aid package? So far all we have
committed to is $1 million, which is a paltry sum in terms of what is needed to
help with this great emergency.
(1125)
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada has always been there in emergency
situations across the world. As the member mentioned, last week the Minister
for International Cooperation announced a $1 million aid package to the United
Nations in response to their $6 million request.
Our funds helped kick-start the operation that he is
now talking about. The alert is a worst case scenario. Obviously the UN has to
prepare and so do countries, and Canada will be there.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the acting prime
minister. Maybe that will get the Minister of Finance on his feet.
Lloyd Axworthy, a former cabinet minister, has said
that Canada should take a lead in a major diplomatic offensive to organize
humanitarian aid for this crisis in the world.
Will the acting prime minister take the lead of Lloyd
Axworthy and will Canada lead a major diplomatic initiative to organize
humanitarian aid in Afghanistan? What is our position? What are we doing to
take this leadership role? Could the Minister of Finance answer that
question?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, obviously I am not the Minister of
Finance, but I believe I can answer the question. Canada has been helping
Afghanistan for over 10 years. We have given over $120 million to
Afghanistan.
We do not recognize the Taliban, that is clear. Our
money is funnelled through the UN agencies and the NGOs. We are working closely
with both to ensure that we are there to help the refugees who are there now
and those who may become refugees in the future. We will be there.
* * *
Immigration
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, we should just take a couple of seconds to
find out actually where some of that government money is funnelled through. We
learned from the new unpublished public accounts that the government gave the
Tamil Eelam Society of Canada $278,229 for “immigrant settlement
services”.
Could the government confirm that all of this money
went for those purposes for which it was intended and not one dollar went to
any terrorist activities?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that funds for
immigrant settlement services are audited by my department to ensure that they
are used for the intended purposes. They do provide important services for new
immigrants to Canada.
* * *
National Security
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refuses to admit that
there is a problem with porous border security. Yet United States Attorney
General John Ashcroft has called our border a terrorist transit point and has
already announced that the United States will toughen security along the
Canadian border. Yet Liberal cuts to CSIS, the RCMP and customs have resulted
in vulnerabilities at home and abroad.
When meeting with President Bush did the Prime Minister
put forward a particular Canadian point of view on the idea of a North American
security perimeter? Faced with the new realities of security can Canadians
expect that resources will be allocated to our security forces at
home?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one should be proud of the work done by
Canada Customs since September 11, but of course one should be proud as well of
Canada Customs as a whole in the sense that if there is one customs system in
the world leading in regard to the brand new challenges ahead for customs
systems, it is Canada Customs.
We have started to reform the whole system. As I have
said many times, I met with the U.S. ambassador this week and it seems that
there is really a meeting of the minds.
Talking about additional money to proceed with our
Canadian reforms, we have been allocated an additional $100 million in order to
put these reforms in place to keep our society safe.
* * *
The Economy
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Nova Scotia just minutes ago
issued a forecast projecting a deficit of $5 billion for the fiscal year
2002.
In addition to the massive layoffs and the fact that
the Canadian dollar is hovering at an all time low as we speak, what is the
finance minister doing to take into account this dramatically new fiscal
situation in this country? Will he proceed with plans to let his cabinet
colleagues like the Minister of Industry spend billions of dollars when we are
now staring a deficit in the face?
(1130)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the
government will maintain fiscal responsibility. I have said that from the
beginning and the government has demonstrated that by its record.
I can also assure the hon. member that the spending the
government engages in will be designed to increase the growth and productivity
and the quality of life of Canadians.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, no budget, no recognition of reality, no
changing of priorities to recognize the imperatives of national security, it is
business as usual even when one of our major banks is projecting a $5 billion
actual deficit within two fiscal years.
What action is the finance minister taking to account
for the new economic realities in this country? When will he bring forward a
budget? Will he avoid a deficit now, come hell or high water?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member in another
intervention would explain to us how anybody could add up a set of numbers
involving massive tax cuts, which the hon. member has suggested, massive
spending, which they have been suggesting over the course of the last two
weeks, and avoid a deficit.
Why does the hon. member not accept the fact that his
party is now recommending huge deficits? They are the logical consequence of
his party's policy unless that party cannot count, which is more than likely
the case.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance kept on
telling us that he had done everything possible in the past to get us through
the present crisis. However, it is his inertia at the present time that is
likely to jeopardize the sacrifices everyone has made to put public finances on
a healthier footing. The drop in value of the Canadian dollar is indicative of
a loss of investor confidence, which is in addition to the loss of consumer
confidence.
Does the minister realize that his inaction is making
him the author of an even more serious economic downturn than we are
experiencing at the present time?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member of the opposition knows
very well that the surplus we have today is certainly decreasing because of the
events of September 11 and those of the third and fourth quarter of this
year.
I have a question for him. Is he recommending to us, or
to Canadians, that we should spend ourselves back into a deficit
situation?
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ):
We are the ones asking the questions, Mr. Speaker. That
is not what we are asking. We are asking him to tell the truth on the extent of
the surplus at this time. We are also asking him to take off his rose coloured
glasses.
All of the economic indicators point to the severity of
the downturn. Consumers are putting off purchases. Investors are shunning
Canadian stocks and the Canadian dollar is in a free fall.
Is the minister capable of analyzing the present and
looking to the future, instead of dwelling on the past, and of bringing down in
the near future a true plan for bolstering the economy and helping the workers
who are victims of the downturn?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I again ask the hon. member, who has even
refused to give an indication of what he thinks ought to be done, whether what
he is saying is that we should abandon fiscal balance? Is he saying that we
should give up on that, and is he recommending that we go back to a deficit
situation? Is that what the Bloc Quebecois position is?
* * *
[English]
National Defence
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, there is something seriously wrong with
the government's priorities. Yesterday the auditor general slammed the way the
government gave $7 billion to unaccountable foundations, calling it “very
troubling”. The Conference of Defence Associations yesterday said Canada's
military is “simply not operationally ready”.
Does the government understand that the price for its
misplaced priorities is Canada's failure to uphold its international
obligations?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in regard to misplaced priorities, do I
understand what the hon. member is saying? The Canadian Foundation for
Innovation has funded the synchrotron project in Saskatchewan and is funding
basic research right across the country, which is an essential element of the
new economy and of any country's growth programs.
Is he saying that basic research and applied research
in the country is a misplaced priority? It is wonderful to know now the real
agenda of the party opposite.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I think the finance minister should speak
to the auditor general and understand that the vast majority of the $7 billion
is sitting in cash deposits. It is doing nothing for the good of the
country.
The reality is that while the Canadian forces are being
starved, an amount nearly equal to their entire annual budget is handed out and
the government does not know what is being done with the money. Meanwhile
Canada is becoming known around the world as a condolence card ally, a bed and
breakfast for terrorists, and it is the weak link of NATO.
Could the minister explain why handouts are more
important to Canadians than keeping our word to our allies?
(1135)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let us understand what the member is
saying. He is saying the synchrotron project in Saskatchewan is a handout. He
is saying the money that is going to hospitals in his province for research and
development is a handout. He is saying that the money going to fund researchers
across the country, that brings people back to Canada to develop the new
economy and to educate young Canadians is a handout.
That shows where the priorities of the hon. member and
those of his party are. Let me say those are not the priorities of Canadians.
Canadians want to build the country and the government will build it with
them.
* * *
[Translation]
Air Canada
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
(Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, according to newspaper reports, Air
Canada's request to the federal government for financial assistance predates
the September 11 attacks. Indeed, the company purportedly approached the
federal government for assistance to the tune of $1 billion dollars.
Will the Minister of Transport tell us if Air Canada's
request for financial assistance was made prior to September 11, and will he
provide us with details of the request?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, clearly Air Canada was experiencing
difficulties prior to September 11. This was widely reported in the press.
There were talks held between myself, my officials and Air Canada to discuss
the problems. Air Canada made a number of proposals for improving the
situation.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
(Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, will the minister give us some assurance
that the financial assistance he is planning for Air Canada will be directly
related to the events of September 11, and that he is not using these events as
a pretext to get Air Canada out of a financial mess that predates the New York
attacks?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of our analysis at
this time.
* * *
[English]
Terrorism
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and the Minister
of Justice have said that Canada has laws allowing us to seize terrorist
assets. What they did not tell us was that the government agency responsible
for identifying terrorist assets, Fintrac, is not even up and running
yet.
How are we supposed to identify, freeze and seize the
assets of Osama bin Laden if the agency responsible for identifying these
assets is not even operational?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the organizations have been already
identified. They were identified in the annex to the letter that OSFI sent to
the banks. The banks have issued a public statement saying they are
co-operating and acting on the request. It has been taken care of.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday former RCMP commissioner Norman
Inkster said that he thought that the events of September 11 would mean the
highest priority given to freezing the terrorists' assets in Canada.
This weak Liberal government has repeatedly refused to
make firm commitments regarding when it is going to get serious on fighting
terrorism. Why is it ignoring recommendations from the opposition, from the
private sector and from its own departments? Is there something it is not
telling us?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would simply read the
communiqué from the Canadian Bankers Association he would see that in fact the
government has taken action, that Canadian banks have taken action and that
they took it forthwith. I simply would read it:
Banks in Canada are complying with
Canadian law enforcement agencies (the RCMP) under the laws of Canada and will
continue to co-operate in the efforts against terrorism by reviewing records
and providing relevant information to appropriate Canadian law enforcement
agencies. |
The press release goes on to say that our legislation
has “the effect of giving the banks in Canada” the right to freeze the account
activity of Osama bin Laden and--
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker:
The hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.
* * *
[English]
Softwood Lumber
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc
(Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since meetings with U.S. trade
representative Zoellick and commerce secretary Evans two weeks ago, what has
the government done to defend Canada's softwood lumber industry from U.S. trade
actions and protectionist American lumber industries?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and
his continued interest in this important matter.
The government has been very active on three specific
fronts relevant to softwood lumber. First, we are committed to trade action. We
are now in the process of requesting a WTO panel and the government will take
six measures to the WTO for adjudication regarding the U.S. trade action. We
continue to hold official discussions. Last week in Toronto there was enough
progress made that there will be discussions next week in Washington to look at
the root causes.
In light of the tragedy in the United States, the
government is advocating quietly but persistently for our lumber
industry.
* * *
(1140)
Airline Safety
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport was quite right
when he said our airport security does not need to exactly mirror the U.S. to
be safe. Many people think that some of the U.S. measures like armed air
marshals are making it easier for generals to shoot down civilian airliners and
will actually make people feel less safe in the air.
That being said, the minister has not convinced
Canadians that our security systems are fine as is. One can become an airport
security guard in Canada with 20 hours of training. That is the same amount of
training that one gets at McDonald's.
Why will the minister not admit that this training is
insufficient and that contracting security out to the lowest bidder
is--
The Deputy Speaker:
The hon. Minister of Transport.
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member from the
NDP continues to denigrate unionized workers who do a very valuable job across
the country screening all the baggage. These people are trained. They are
re-tested every two years. If they need additional training that is something
we would be prepared to look at.
Why does she continue to beat up on individuals who are
trying to do their best?
* * *
Terrorism
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting prime
minister. Apparently, according to CNN, British and American troops have begun
special operations in Afghanistan.
I would like to ask the acting prime minister, was
Canada informed before this took place? What did we know? What can he tell the
House? It is extremely important that we know whether or not Canada has been
informed of these operations and what took place.
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are not aware of such action being
taken at this point in time. I just came back from the NATO meeting. There has
been a lot of discussion about it. Of course when it comes to special
operations there is not a lot of information that would be divulged publicly
for security reasons.
* * *
Airline Safety
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, one of the first anti-terrorist measures
to guarantee airline safety needs to be securing the cockpit.
When will the Minister of Transport be able to assure
travellers that, number one, the cockpit doors are locked, and number two, the
cockpit doors are reinforced?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the regulation for the locking of cockpit
doors was issued on September 17, the first day the House was back. Transport
Canada, as the regulator in Canada, is working with the FAA and the European
authorities to ensure that new design changes come into effect to strengthen
cockpit doors. These will then apply to Bombardier, as our principal
manufacturer, and Boeing and Airbus.
We are all working together to the same end, to the
same result, which is to protect airline passengers.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the minister's
answer is going to reassure the passengers who are flying today that the
cockpits are secure.
He insists that the baggage handlers are adequately
trained and have sufficient numbers to do their job yet they disagree. He
refuses to consider allowing the crews to carry stun guns or pepper spray. He
refuses to take precautionary measures, such as protecting the passengers with
air marshals. He even intends to prevent U.S. aircraft with sky marshals on
board from entering Canada. Why?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member has been too
preoccupied with the integration problems of his rump group and the
Conservative Party to have noticed that we have added additional security
measures. They have affected hazardous materials and sharp objects on planes.
There are measures dealing with access of airside workers to planes, screener
training, photo ID, enhanced infiltration testing, and the strengthening of the
cockpit doors as I mentioned.
Why is the opposition so intent on trying to discourage
the travelling public from getting back into the air?
* * *
Employment Insurance
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the publicly stated promise of performance
for employment insurance states that when a Canadian loses his or her job, the
claim should be processed in 21 days and the first benefit cheque should arrive
shortly after that.
In eastern Ontario the reality is a whole lot
different. In August only 32% of claims were processed within this timeframe.
Many laid off workers have to wait eight weeks or more. Callers to the
information centre are advised it will take 15 days just to inform them of the
status of their claims.
When will this unacceptable situation
change?
(1145)
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the increase in EI claims reflects the
impact of a downturn in the economy that is being felt in some parts of the
country and in the economy itself. In addition, recent work stoppages have
greatly affected productivity. This has limited the number of workload
reduction options, that is, overtime, and has added to the backlogs in many
offices around the country.
We are working to reduce this backlog to provide the
level of service that Canadians have come to expect. Our goal is to maintain
service levels to 28 days for new claims.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I think the speaking notes prepared for
the hon. parliamentary secretary were intended for a different
question.
A year ago when Kanata's high tech sector was booming,
the 21 day promise of performance was almost always met. Now that thousands of
workers in Kanata and the rest of eastern Ontario actually need help, the EI
system is falling apart at the seams.
The government's main campaign point in recent
elections has been that it is a competent manager. A manager who meets his
targets only 38% of the time could expect himself to be collecting employment
insurance pretty soon.
How long will it be before the targets that were met
last year will be achieved in this part of the country this year?
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat the answer that I gave a
moment ago.
There have been a number of factors that have meant
that the work has slowed down. We are working on this right now.
I would like to add that the employment insurance
program is there for Canadians who face layoffs. HRDC officials are working now
to ensure that employees affected by layoffs are able to access the benefits
they are entitled to.
* * *
[Translation]
Foreign Affairs
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval
Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, whose lack of
leadership at the international level can only be deplored, recently said that
he is in favour of a diplomatic approach and that he would seize the
opportunity provided by the Commonwealth meeting and the Francophonie summit to
broaden the coalition in the fight against terrorism.
How does the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain that
Canada is one of the countries that announced that it would not take part in
the Commonwealth meeting, thus contributing to its cancellation?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the decision to postpone the Commonwealth
meeting was taken by the Prime Minister of Australia and the Commonwealth
Secretary General. It is a decision that we must respect.
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval
Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, since Canada's decision was made before
the decision of the Prime Minister of Australia, can the minister tell us if
the Canadian government intends to take part in the Francophonie summit, which
is scheduled to take place in Lebanon, in October?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that the Prime Minister
is prepared to travel to all the way to Australia, as well as to Lebanon, if
meetings take place as scheduled.
* * *
[English]
Sudan
Mr. Maurice Vellacott
(Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government continues to take a
see nothing, do nothing approach toward the extremist brutal regime in Sudan.
As recently as two days ago in this very House, the Liberal government refused
to condemn the Sudanese government for its crimes against humanity and
genocidal acts toward its own citizens.
Why will the Liberal government not condemn this
terrorist and genocidal regime?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
If only the world were so simple, Mr. Speaker. Earlier
this week the United States praised the Government of Sudan for the attitude
that it has taken in the current circumstances.
I hope the hon. member understands what we, with our
allies, are endeavouring to do at the present time. It is to build the broadest
consensus possible to move against terrorism. Comments such as his are probably
not that helpful.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott
(Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, to take an example of that, a low Flight
to justify his position, CSIS documents show that the Sudanese regime has
continued to very aggressively pursue an agenda of international terrorism. It
has used its embassy staff to raise funds for Osama bin Laden. It has given
diplomatic credentials to bin Laden's followers so they can travel anywhere in
the world. It has actually budgeted for international terrorism. It has worked
with bin Laden to manufacture chemical weapons for use on civilians.
Again, I ask the foreign affairs minister, what more
does this brutal Sudanese regime have to do before the Liberal government will
condemn it?
(1150)
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the choice of timing for such a question
is unfortunate. I will not comment on security intelligence reports as I think
the member should expect that I would not do. In the present circumstances I
reiterate to him, we are endeavouring to build the broadest possible
international consensus to act against terrorism. We and the United States
certainly hope that the Government of Sudan will continue not only the
encouraging words it has used but will be part of that consensus.
* * *
Porcupine Caribou
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski made recent
remarks to re-emphasize his desire to drill in the sensitive Porcupine caribou
calving grounds in Alaska. He also criticized Canada's opposition to this plan,
singling out our Minister of the Environment.
Will the Minister of the Environment tell the House his
position on this important issue?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the
Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Senator Murkowski's reaction to my remarks
on the 1002 lands indicate very clearly why it is important not to allow recent
events to be used to stampede governments into ill-considered decisions in
other unrelated areas.
Canada will continue to urge the United States to
honour the 1987 agreement on the conservation of the Porcupine caribou herd and
its habitat. Canada will continue to emphasize that protection of the Porcupine
caribou calving grounds is critical to the health of the herd and to the
culture and way of life of the Gwich'in first nation people, both in Yukon and
in Alaska.
* * *
Firearms Registry
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, as of March 31, 2001 the government admits
it had a staff of 1,800 people and spent half a billion dollars implementing
the problem plagued gun registry, $200 million last year alone. In 1995 the
Minister of Justice promised it would only cost $85 million to
implement.
Since August the auditor general has been trying to
make sense of this colossal cost overrun. Will the Prime Minister please
explain why tracking duck hunters is still a bigger priority for the government
than tracking potential terrorists?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that about
85% of Canadians support the gun registry program. In fact it is a public
safety issue. The government confirmed that it will provide public safety for
Canadians and will continue to do so.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance):
I am all for public safety, Mr. Speaker,
Yesterday, officials in the office of the Minister of
National Revenue advised that firearms licences with photo IDs are not suitable
identification for Canadian citizens crossing the border, but provincial
drivers licences are okay.
Law-abiding firearms owners have to go through criminal
record checks, background checks, reference checks, pass a test and have their
privacy invaded to get a firearms licence.
If Canada customs will not trust a firearms licence as
an acceptable piece of identification, just why do we spend half a billion
dollars issuing them?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when people cross the border, they have to
go through the standard screening.
We have talked many times about the question of risk
management. We are using different tools that we have at our disposal at the
border, especially at the American border.
We are managing as well the question of the
registration of firearms. However, we on this side of the House have made a
choice as a society to make sure that having firearms in Canada is seen as an
exception. It is not a right in Canada.
We on this side of the House want to make sure that we
have a good and safe society. Canadians support that.
* * *
[Translation]
Employment Insurance
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, the auditor general
tabled a report with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It reveals that
the surpluses of over $36 billion in the employment insurance fund as at May 31
are far in excess of the $15 billion considered necessary. Once again, we have
proof that the minister is incapable of managing employment insurance. Worse
yet, the auditor general indicates that the spirit of the law has not been
followed.
Will the minister finally implement the unanimous
report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources tabled in this House on May
31?
(1155)
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this government favours a balanced
approach to employment insurance. We are trying to balance our obligation to
Canadians to help them if they are in need with that of protecting the
integrity of our social programs.
As the report on the performance of our department
indicated, we realized savings of $553 million in the employment insurance
account in the last fiscal year.
As to the second question—
An hon. member: That is not the
question.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: —I have already told the
House we are working on the report and will release it very soon.
* * *
[English]
National Defence
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
National Defence.
The minister will know that yesterday the Conference of
Defence Associations released a report on the state of the Canadian military.
Could the minister provide the House with his comments and observations on the
report?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, some of the comments of the Conference of
Defence Associations are valid and some of them are not valid. When we add to
that the distortions and exaggerations of the media and opposition, we get some
statements that do not fit at all.
First, the Canadian forces are fit to carry out their
job as a multipurpose combat capable force. Second, they can meet the
provisions of the 1994 defence policy white paper. Third, the government is
modernizing the Canadian forces. It has put $3 billion into the forces over the
last three budgets. It has clearly stated that it will provide what is
necessary for them to do their job.
* * *
National Security
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, as everyone is aware, the first line of
defence in our fight against terrorism is a strong border.
This week we learned that student employees are manning
many of our border crossings. This is a dangerous proposition for our country
and the students as well. Customs expects these students to make independent
decisions on who crosses the border and who does not. They are forced to work
in an unsupervised manner.
Will the minister reconsider his directive of using
students as our first line of defence?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is true that Canada Customs hires
students during the summer and all year long. They are receiving good training.
It is part of the government's youth strategy.
As I said, they receive good training, they work under
supervision and they are doing a very good job.
* * *
[Translation]
Canadian Banks
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in reaction to the measures taken by the
United States to trace funds linked to the terrorists, the superintendent of
financial institutions asked Canadian banks to trace funds deposited in their
accounts and to co-operate with the U.S. authorities.
Will the Minister of Finance tell us whether or not
funds identified as belonging to individuals or to terrorist groups include
funds they hold in foreign branches of Canadian banks, including the 50
branches of Canadian banks located in the Caribbean, a region considered to be
an absolute hotbed of tax havens and money laundering?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can confirm that the legislation
applies to Canadian banks everywhere, both within and outside our borders. I
can also tell the member that, this week, the Canadian Bankers' Association
issued a press release in which it said very clearly that it would co-operate
100% with the request from the government and from the United
Nations.
* * *
[English]
National Defence
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
National Defence.
The Globe and Mail website this morning at 11.23
a.m. said that U.S. and British special forces are in Afghanistan. Why was the
minister kept in the dark? Why is he being kept out of the loop?
Why do members of parliament have to rely on the
Globe and Mail for important news like this instead of hearing from the
Government of Canada?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I made it quite clear the last time that
when it comes to covert operations that special operations groups from any
country, including our own, may carry out for reasons of national security we
do not talk about them.
* * *
Housing
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public
Works and Government Services.
Seventy-five hundred people in British Columbia have
had to declare personal bankruptcy due to the leaky condo crisis. The personal
stress and hardship cannot be measured.
When will the government show some leadership, step in
and help the quarter of a million British Columbians who are affected by this
crisis?
(1200)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on October 20, 2000, the Governments of
Canada and B.C. announced an agreement that will help owners of moisture
damaged residential units. We gave the British Columbia government a commitment
of $27.7 million, of which $11 million has already been advanced.
[Privilege ]
* * *
[Translation]
Privilege
Adjournment
Proceedings
[Privilege]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to report a situation that, in my
opinion, infringes members' rights.
On May 30, I put a question in the House to the member
for Ottawa West—Nepean in her capacity as the spokesperson for the House's
Board of Internal Economy on the subject of a Library of Parliament service
that was being developed for parliamentarians, including the members of this
House.
Standing Order 37(3) affords all members the
opportunity to debate a matter further if they are not satisfied with the
answer. This is what I am doing right now. I gave notice here, to the table,
that I intended to raise the matter in the House during adjournment
proceedings.
We recognize that there is a bit of a gap between the
time the member gives notice of intent to raise a matter and the time the
announcement of matters to be raised during adjournment proceedings is given,
since only three matters may be debated at that time.
I let some time go by, thinking that, by parliament's
resumption on September 17, I would have been told when I might raise the
matter.
I noted the first week that subjects were lacking for
adjournment proceedings. So, I made inquiry with the table, which referred me
to the Private Members Business Office.
On the 26th, a letter arrived at my office. The next
day I notified the Speaker of my desire to raise this matter of privilege. Here
we are.
In the letter, which I will table, if necessary, I am
told that, according to the Standing Orders, I cannot request debate on the
matter during adjournment proceedings, because the member for Ottawa
West--Nepean is neither minister nor parliamentary secretary. Standing Order
38(5) provides, and I quote:
A Minister of the Crown, or a
Parliamentary Secretary speaking on behalf of a Minister, if he or she wishes
to do so, may speak for not more than two minutes. When debate has lasted for a
total of thirty minutes, or when the debate on the matter or matters raised has
ended, whichever comes first, the Speaker shall deem the motion to adjourn to
have been carried and shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.
|
This paragraph sets out how the privilege may be used
during adjournment proceedings.
Because the member, the spokesperson for the Board of
Internal Economy, is neither minister nor parliamentary secretary, my privilege
is infringed.
It clearly says “if he or she wishes to do so”. This
means that if the government wants to, someone may reply to the comments of the
hon. member who has the privilege of speaking for longer on the issue of
concern to him or her, that is four minutes instead of the 30 seconds that are
available to put a question.
So, because there seems to be an internal conflict in
the rules of the House, there is a breach of my privileges.
This may not seem like a very important issue to some,
but it seems to me that a parliamentary institution, the Library of Parliament,
seems immune from questioning.
I cannot, as a member of parliament, ask questions to
the Speaker of the House—this is what I am told—even though the Library of
Parliament is accountable to both Chairs, in the House of Commons and in the
other place. Since I cannot address the Chair in the House before the Canadian
public about issues that are of importance, who can I turn to?
I asked this question in the House. I was allowed to do
so. But I am not being permitted to elaborate and I think this is a breach of
my privileges.
Secondly, I would like to know why we waited until I
raised the question? I had to go back to the Office to find out when
adjournment proceedings were scheduled, only to then receive a letter saying
that they would not.
In my opinion, my request could have been replied to
when I submitted it, or soon thereafter, instead of waiting until the month of
September. This seems to become a pattern with parliamentary institutions. I
will probably have the opportunity to raise another question of privilege on
another case dealing with a similar situation.
I do not understand why I would be deprived of my
privilege to address the House on what is a current issue, this under the
pretence that no one can answer my question.
I do hope that the Chair will determine whether there
is indeed an internal conflict in the rules, as seems to think the clerk at the
Private Members' Business Office and, if so, that it will be corrected. But in
the meantime, I hope I will not be deprived of my privilege to address the
House.
(1205)
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy for the
hon. member and the question he is raising.
I was informed of the situation about a week ago. I
myself approached our clerks, who do such a great job for us, to indicate that
I saw a problem developing.
It seems that when we changed the Standing Orders a few
years ago, allowing questions to be asked concerning the Board of Internal
Economy—prior to that, no questions whatsoever relating to parliamentary
spending were allowed—and when we changed to rule about questioning the whip or
leader of the opposition in the House, these generally being the spokespersons
for the board, that made it possible for a question to be asked in the House.
But for other questions, the rule is that an adjournment debate is allowed,
what is often called “the late show” in the vernacular.
But when the Standing Orders were changed in the case
of the Board of Internal Economy, we did not change the other one. This is most
unfortunate, and creates an injustice. I agree with the hon. member on
that.
If, in the near future, the clerks could prepare for us
the necessary amendment to the Standing Orders, I would be agreeable to
discussing it with the other House leaders, with a view to amending the
Standing Orders and making things equitable. It seems to me that is the
solution.
We frequently find rules in parliamentary law that need
to be adjusted. You have just presided over a review of the entire
modernization process in which a number of us were involved.
I have met twice with my colleagues in the House. No
one on my side of the House raised this, no one had even imagined
it.
Under these circumstances, perhaps the hon. member's
request could be left pending, rather than doing away with it completely, and
we could all focus on changing the rule promptly so that the question could
then be allowed. If the Chair could take that into consideration, it seems to
me that this would be the way to remedy the situation.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, noting the potential procedural gap there
may be in this context, we would be prepared to give our consent to proceed
with the member's application to have what the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons calls the “late show” in the vernacular.
We would give our approval so that, until the standing
orders are amended, we may proceed accordingly in the present case.
The Deputy Speaker:
Pursuant to the question raised by the hon. member for
Ottawa--Vanier, it strikes me at first glance that this is not a question of
privilege. It is certainly a grievance, but given the seriousness of the
matter, the Chair will examine it, take it under advisement and return to the
House if necessary.
I appreciate the co-operation apparent from members on
both sides of the House in this.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for
Ottawa--Vanier wishes to speak again, but I believe I have made a ruling on the
question he raised. If it is on another matter, I will allow him to speak. If
it is on the same point of order, I have expressed my decision on
it.
(1210)
Mr. Mauril Bélanger:
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
To be certain of what has been said in the House, if I
have properly understood, the opposition is in agreement, until a decision has
been made on the matter, to allow this debate.
The government House leader seemed to agree. I wonder
if you reached this conclusion and whether, regardless of the conclusion on the
point I raised, I may, in the meantime, do so in the coming days.
Hon. Don Boudria: Yes, but unanimous consent
will be required.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. Returning to the matter raised by the
hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier, I stand by my first conclusions. The Chair will
take the matter seriously under advisement and return to the House, if
necessary. However as to the matter of unanimous consent, that is for any
member to seek from his or her colleagues at any time.
The awkwardness of the situation is that under our
present standing orders only a minister or parliamentary secretary can respond
if he or she so chooses. However we must keep in mind that in this case the
question was asked of someone in a different position with a different
responsibility. I cannot rule on the question of unanimous consent. That is for
the House to exercise in its own wisdom. However I stand by my decision to take
the matter originally raised under advisement.
* * *
Points of Order
Oral Question
Period
[Points of Order]
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration suggested in question period that I had pleaded
on behalf of immigrants that exceptions to the Immigration Act be made for
them. That is not true. However I was trying to point out that errors are made
by the department in applying the law.
The Deputy Speaker:
Respectfully to the member for Blackstrap who raised
the issue, it is not really a point of order but a matter of debate between two
parliamentarians across from one another. I will leave it at that.
* * *
[Translation]
House of Commons
Calendar
The Deputy Speaker:
Pursuant to Standing Order 28, I have the honour to
table the House of Commons calendar for the year 2002.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1215)
[English]
First Nations Governance Review
Act
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-399, an
act to establish a First Nations Ombudsman and a First Nations Auditor to
assist with administrative and financial problems.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my
private member's bill. Its purpose is twofold. Part one would establish the
office of first nations ombudsman to assist persons who consider that they are
being dealt with unfairly or unreasonably. The ombudsman may investigate
complaints and report to the minister regarding complaints that are not
satisfactorily resolved. He may also propose changes to first nations
administrative policies and practices.
Part two would provide for an official from the office
of the Auditor General of Canada to be appointed as first nations auditor. The
official would carry out audits of first nation communities that are insolvent
or where impropriety in financial management is alleged.
Both the ombudsman and the auditor would make reports
to the minister. The reports would then go before parliament.
(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Petitions
Census Records
Mr. Murray Calder
(Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to present a petition
concerning the release of census records to genealogists and historians. The
petition is signed by more than 2,500 Canadians from all 10 provinces. If we
add that to previous petitions I have presented this year, more than 11,700
signatures have been submitted.
The petition points out that an estimated 7.5 million
Canadians are engaged in the pursuit of their family histories and that census
records are a valuable tool for such research. Such records have been used for
historical research, tracing genetic diseases and settling wills and
estates.
The petitioners are calling on parliament to take
whatever steps are necessary to retroactively amend the confidentiality clauses
of the Census and Statistics Act, 1906 to allow the release to the public of
post-1901 census records after a reasonable period of time.
* * *
Questions on the Order
Paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker:
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[Translation]
Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-32, an act to implement the Free Trade
Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic
of Costa Rica, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise following the member
for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot.
Today, the focus of my remarks will be to show my
solidarity with the workers and the management of the Lantic Sugar refinery
located in my riding, not very far from my office, on Notre-Dame street. I will
have the opportunity to explain further during my speech. It is a world-class
refinery, and people there are extremely concerned about the liberalization of
the sugar industry that will result from the bill before us today. Before
getting to the central part of my speech, I would like to make some preliminary
comments.
First, never ever should one believe that the members
of the Bloc Quebecois, or the rest of the sovereignist family, are against free
trade. Everyone knows that Quebec played a leadership role in the first free
trade agreement that was signed in 1988. Quebecers are essentially in favour of
free trade. Nearly half of Quebec's production is exported to the United
States, to the Canadian market or to other destinations. So there is no
question that Quebecers support free trade.
We know full well that any bilateral or multilateral
agreement Canada enters into can generate economic growth over time. We are not
questioning that.
What is troubling with the way the government acts is
that we are being confronted with a done deal. One must not think that today,
when two sovereign states sign a treaty that will have an impact on trade, it
will only affect the manufacturing sector or the business community. The
liberalization of an industrial sector may affect culture, financial
institutions in the short term, medical equipment and, consequently, the
viability of businesses and the maintaining of employment. What is particular
with the way the government acts is that we are being confronted with a done
deal.
The Minister for International Trade, who is very
self-confident, as we know--the least we can say, as Jacques-Yvan Morin put, is
that he thinks he is the cat's meow--came to the House saying “I signed an
agreement, I have committed the executive and I ask parliamentarians to ratify
this agreement without prior debate”.
One could also use the same logic for the bills
introduced by the hon. member for Mercier: we want treaties involving the
executive and, ultimately, parliament, to be submitted to the House before
their final approval. The same applies to treaties on foreign policy.
Unfortunately, our demands have fallen on deaf ears: the government has not
listened to us. This is deplorable.
Signing a trade agreement is not an isolated, rare, and
marginal phenomenon. We can even say that it is increasing at an incredible
speed. Some 28 bilateral and multilateral treaties signed by Canada came into
force in 1997, 44 in 1998 and the forecast is for that number to be over 50 in
the years to come.
I believe one cannot talk about valuing the role of
members of parliament, of striking a better balance between the executive, that
is to say the government, and the legislative, which is the parliament, if we
are only a rubber stamp and are not involved in the making of treaties before
they are ratified.
With regard to the implementation of the free trade
agreement between Canada and Costa Rica, there are a few issues of concern that
I would like to talk about.
The free trade agreement Canada signed with Costa Rica,
which of course is a multi-dimensional agreement involving several sectors of
the economy, raises concern regarding a particular sector, namely the sugar
industry.
(1220)
It must be known that the free trade agreement with
Costa Rica will totally eliminate tariffs on refined sugar. This is one of the
main problems we, as parliamentarians, see in this agreement.
More to the point, there is an agreement with Costa
Rica. As we know, this country is tiny albeit beautiful. I went there on my
second honeymoon. As one can easily imagine, I had the opportunity to see Costa
Rica in very romantic terms. This small country is politically stable, its
agrifood industry is extremely important, and of course it is very interesting
for its fauna as well as the way it welcomes tourists.
It must be said that the agreement between Costa Rica
and Canada could be used as a model, and be a prelude to freer trade with four
other countries in Central America. I refer of course to Guatemala, Honduras,
El Salvador and Nicaragua.
The spokespersons for the sugar industry, be they on
the workers' side or the management side, are worried. They are wondering
whether the free trade agreement between Canada and Costa Rica is a sign of
freer trade in the sugar industry among El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and
Honduras.
If that is the case, then we have a problem. Let me put
it very simply: if the same model were to be used to liberalize trade with four
other countries, then whole segments of the sugar industry would
collapse.
As we know, the sugar industry is extremely fragile,
not only because the profit margin is not very high, but also because--as the
hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot
reminded us--in the 1970s, an international cartel made up of a number of
countries tried to fix the price on the world market, something which caused
significant price increases at one point in time.
The governments then decided to subsidize the sugar
industry to ensure that the product could be sold on the world market at a very
competitive price per tonne. We then found ourselves in a situation where the
U.S. generated a dramatic drop in the demand for sugar products, which resulted
in an extremely low demand price.
The hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot
reminded me that we are not immune to the schemes of another cartel. At such a
time, I am sure that I will find the input of the member for Longueuil very
useful.
(1225)
I would like to get to the core of the issue and say
that I fully support the workers of Lantic Sugar Limited, in the riding of
Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, and the management of that company. This is not a
dispute between the union and the management.
This is very interesting and I am proud to say that
when this Canadian sugar company had to streamline its operations and choose a
location to carry on its production, it opted for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve. This
was made possible because the union agreed to review existing collective
agreements and sign a new long term collective agreement. This is a very good
example of industrial peace where both the workers and the management at Lantic
Sugar made compromises to ensure the survival of the company and to protect
jobs in Montreal's east end.
Lantic Sugar is a world class refinery. It is at the
very top of the world's leading sugar refineries.
As we are speaking, the company operates at 90% of its
regular capacity. In 1999 and 2000, it invested $100 million to modernize its
operations.
It is with regret that I must say that while the city,
the Quebec government and local stakeholders developed a plan to rescue the
company, the federal government did not invest one penny in that plan to save
Lantic Sugar.
This is another example which shows that, when it comes
to regional development, particularly in Montreal, it is extremely difficult to
enlist the federal government's co-operation.
The Lantic Sugar refinery, which is a world class
company, currently employs 345 people. Imagine what it would mean for these
workers if there was a sudden drop in the demand for sugar products at the
international level. When we look at the negotiations conducted by the Minister
for International Trade, we truly get the impression that the sugar industry
was not considered at its fair value. The possible threat facing the sugar
industry was not taken into consideration, as it should have been, following an
early and unfavourable liberalization process, as I will show later on.
This means that if changes are not made and if the
government intends to use this model for negotiations to come with four other
Central American countries, we could lose tens of jobs. But rest assured,
because the Bloc Quebecois will not let this happen.
A business employing 345 workers has made major
investments, to the tune of $100 million, on the east side of Montreal, which
means essentially from Papineau street to the end of the island. Mr. Speaker, I
believe that you spent part of your childhood in Montreal, as we have discussed
before, so you know the city pretty well.
As I was saying, investments were made in that business
that provides $28 million worth of salaries and benefits. That business also
needs supplies and services for its day-to-day operation and has a list of 200
suppliers. This represents investments totalling $40 million.
What is interesting is that Lantic Sugar does not
provide just any type of jobs; it provides interesting jobs for blue collar
workers. We are not talking here about people with university degrees, but they
are honest workers who do their job well and who have received serious
on-the-job training.
I asked what the average salary was at Lantic Sugar.
Members will not be surprised to know that it is $20.67 an hour. This is very
interesting for workers to have businesses offering these kinds of jobs in a
neighbourhood like Hochelaga--Maisonneuve.
Now let us go to the heart of the issue. As we all
know, the Minister for International Trade is bursting with self-confidence. He
is proposing a treaty with Costa Rica that will liberalize trade in one
particular industry, without really thinking about the impact this could have
on people's lives.
(1230)
At the present time, Costa Rica does not produce
refined sugar, which is primarily produced by Lantic Sugar. Costa Rica will be
permitted to export 20,000 tonnes to Canada, starting next year, in 2002. Costa
Rica's access to the Canadian market will be progressively increased from
20,000 tonnes in 2002 to 40,000 tonnes in 2009.
Canada, in turn, will be permitted to export 3,528
tonnes to Costa Rica beginning in 2002, and this will increase to 6,990 tonnes
in 2009. Why am I giving these figures? Because the public needs to understand
that when the Minister for International Trade negotiates with Costa Rica to
liberalize trade, there is some give and take involved. One has the impression
that the sugar industry was sacrificed to the benefit of other sectors. That is
what is unacceptable.
I hope that the minister's parliamentary secretary, who
is nodding his head, will give us guarantees that not only will the signing of
this agreement not be used to implement other agreements with four other
Central American countries, but that there will be no loss of jobs in the sugar
industry. That is my concern as the member for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, because
of the importance of Lantic Sugar.
In this agreement, Canadian exports are based on the
country of origin rule, so that it will only be possible to export products
containing sugar produced in Canada to Costa Rica.
As for raw sugar--not refined--there will be no tariff.
Right now, there is no tariff on raw sugar. In the four countries of Central
America, imports of raw sugar rose from almost nothing in 1995 to 275,000
tonnes in 2000.
It is interesting to note--I hope that the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, who has been kind enough to be in attendance for
this debate, is aware of this--that, in relative terms, the countries of
Central America and Costa Rica have been given ten times the access to the
Canadian market than they have to the United States.
This adds to the concerns of manufacturers because--as
I will point out--the U.S. sugar market is much more protected than the
Canadian sugar market, although it is ten times larger.
I note that the agriculture minister is nodding. I am
not convinced that these considerations were taken into account in the Costa
Rica-Canada agreement.
I therefore have a few raw figures I will try to refine
somewhat during my speech.
In Canada, the tariff on refined sugar products is
$30.86 a tonne. Let us understand clearly that the rate for the Central
American countries is far higher than that. For example, it is 160% in
Guatemala, or 20 times the Canadian rate. The two countries wish to give access
to the market in the same proportions, but they do not start with the same
basic reality because of the different levels of market protection. What have
the consequences of this been?
Refined sugar imports from countries in Central America
are constantly increasing. This is not hard to understand. For example,
Guatemala exported almost nothing over the past five years, but in 2000
exported 3,200 tonnes of refined sugar to Canada. This is a situation of
considerable concern for those working in the industry and for their company
management.
(1235)
What needs to be done? What the industry is calling
for, both employees and management, is that the sugar market not be freed up
with a single country, and that any liberalization not take place until
discussed in a multilateral forum.
There will be other WTO negotiations in 2005, held in
Latin America in fact. People are saying “Why not look at the type of freer
trade we want with a number of countries?” Allowing the sugar industry to be
placed in a negotiating or competing position with countries that have
historically protected their market to a far greater extent than Canada has
been able to does not seem fair. I am being told my time is up, so I will
close.
I call upon the minister and the parliamentary
secretary to be very much aware that, should the agreement in place for Costa
Rica ever be applied and then used as a model for four other Latin American or
Central American countries, we would be placed in a situation where there would
be considerable risk of job losses in the sugar industry. And that we will not
accept.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to enter the
debate on Bill C-32 regarding the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement. I
think it is quite well known that the NDP party has great reservations about
liberalized trade agreements, about the way Canada enters into these agreements
and about the terms and conditions that are either within or fail to be within
the agreements.
Our position is quite clear. We do not think Canada
should enter into any free trade agreements or liberalized trade agreements
that do not enshrine basic labour rights, environmental standards or human
rights. We believe there is a role within trade agreements to deal with those
social issues. We reject the argument that there is no other place for those
other issues within trade deals of that nature.
I point out the irony that we should even debate or
consider this bill in the legislature or in parliament. These free trade
agreements are specifically designed to bypass freely elected legislatures and
parliaments around the world. It is part of their job to provide a charter of
rights and freedoms for corporations that bypass freely elected governments.
Some of our ability to control our destiny within this country is taken away by
these free trade agreements.
It may sound like a strong statement, but Ruggiero, the
former head of the WTO, said that there was a surplus of democracy in the world
that was getting in the way of the free movement of goods and services and
capital. That is why we need free trade agreements to bypass this tedious
democratic process that we spend our lives representing.
That in a nutshell sums up what the NDP's concern is
about free trade agreements. There are people who actually believe that there
is a surplus of democracy in the world which is interfering with the free
movement of capital and investment. It is a frightening thought.
The Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement resembles in
many ways NAFTA, the FTAA, the GATS agreements and other free trade agreements.
There are many similar features in it. There are no noticeable improvements. In
other words, all the things we pointed out as flaws or omissions in those other
agreements are not dealt with in this new Canada-Costa Rica free trade
agreement.
Canada as a nation is dealing with challenges under the
current free trade agreements under which we are living, NAFTA challenges, et
cetera. I point out some cases where we are vulnerable to these challenges, one
of which is dealing with the bulk sale of water. We just heard eloquent and
passionate debates about Canada not getting into exporting bulk water, or the
bulk sale of interbasin transfer of water.
The Americans, through the free trade agreement, are
challenging Canada now. Sun Belt California is a company that is challenging
Canada, saying that we have denied them economic opportunity by refusing to
commodify our water resources. This is the kind of thing to which we are
vulnerable.
Another issue is our postal service. We have chosen to
have a federally owned postal service to deliver our mail. However, American
companies such as UPS, have challenged that. They have said that this is a
service they wish to provide and that they have a right to offer free
competition in that arena. Because they want to provide the delivery of mail
service, they have said that Canada cannot give Canada Post a monopoly on its
courier service.
This is an example of where we are losing our ability
to control our own destiny and shape the kind of country as we want it because
of the free trade agreements we have entered into at times.
At the onset of my speech I mentioned that we are
critical of any liberalized trade agreement that fails to recognize core
labour, environmental standards and basic human rights issues. When we raise
that, we are often told that by trading with less developed nations, those
standards will be elevated by some kind of osmosis and that they will naturally
come up to our level.
(1240)
In other words, we will not go to the lowest common
denominator, they will come up to ours. There is no empirical evidence anywhere
in the world where that has been the case. In fact, the opposite has been true.
The harmonization has been a downward trend, except in places where it is
specifically contemplated and dealt with, such as the European
Union.
The EU was a free trade agreement that the NDP could
probably have endorsed. Over 20 years they carefully set out the terms and
conditions that would not harmonize to the lowest common denominator. In fact,
the less developed countries were brought up to a mean average at
least.
We look at examples like the APEC meetings in Vancouver
that resulted in riots and the pepper spray incident, et cetera. We objected to
inviting somebody like Suharto to our country. We considered him an
international criminal, a butcher. Yet we hosted him in our country. When we
raised that as an objection the government said that by dealing with people
like that and trading with them, we would pull them into the democratic world
and would elevate their standards of labour conditions.
When we ended up pepper spraying our own citizens for
having the temerity for a peaceful protest, it looked like we went down to his
level. That kind of harmonization to the higher common denominator does not
seem to happen. We are very critical of it.
There are specifics in the bill that I should deal
with. First, the preamble of this hefty piece of legislation is written in such
flowery language. It is almost poetic. It is almost beautiful to read the
principles being espoused in that preamble. Unfortunately those same principles
do not find any room within the actual text of the document.
It says that the Government of Canada and the
government of Costa Rica have entered into this agreement to strengthen the
special bonds of friendship among their peoples and to contribute to the
harmonious development and provide a catalyst for broader international
co-operation. They are all very lofty goals and wonderful principles that
anybody would be happy to be associated with, until we see what it really
translates into.
If our interest is really to elevate the standards of
living conditions for people around the world and if it is true that the
globalization of capital is supposed to bring with it the globalization of the
rule of law, the globalization of human rights, the globalization of foreign
labour standards, then where is it in this document? Where is it in the
empirical evidence around the world where these trade agreements exist? It does
not exist. It is a fraud. We are being sold a bill of goods here that do not
translate into elevating anybody's standards. In fact, it has had a reverse
effect. It has had a negative effect on wages and working conditions. It serves
only one interest and that is the interest of global capital.
The NDP is concerned. I should make it clear there is
nothing anti-free trade about the NDP or our party's policy. We are very much
for free trade. Other speakers mentioned that we are more interested in fair
trade. The world should develop and evolve, toward a fair, rules based trading
mechanism, not a free hand in the market shall prevail and good
luck.
Labour standards are of particular concern to me as a
former trade unionist and labour leader. We have watched Costa Rica for many
years. Frankly, Costa Rica has a terrible reputation for labour
standards.
One of our criticisms about this trade agreement is the
same as with NAFTA. It relegates labour issues to a side agreement. They are
not found within the actual text of the document. All those annoying labour
issues will be dealt with by a separate tribunal, which is slow, tedious,
cumbersome, bureaucratic and has not given any satisfaction to the working
people who object or have a legitimate grievance.
Costa Rica is notorious for its persistent denial of
basic labour rights, especially the rights of freedom of association,
collective bargaining and the right to withhold services.
(1245)
All this agreement requires the parties to do is
enforce their existing labour legislation. There is nothing in here about
enhancing current labour legislation to bring it up to the highest common
denominator. It just says that there is a requirement to enforce whatever
labour legislation they have.
Costa Rica's labour legislation is woefully behind
western standards or standards within the free world. It is another one of
those countries, through no fault of its own but through its desire to bring
economic development to its country, that has bought into this idea of free
trade zones or economic trade zones. They are called export processing zones,
or EPZs, in Costa Rica. These are areas that are excused from the pathetic
legislation that exists in that country. These particular zones, these fenced
compounds, do not have to live up to those regulations. It is a cowboy attitude
toward labour standards.
We have watched Costa Rica develop over recent years.
Whether it is Central America, South America and Costa Rica, there is no
exception, they have what we call anti-worker Solidarista movements or phony
union movements. They are unions of convenience, much like CLAC, the Christian
labour alliance, in Canada. By voluntarily signing a contract with CLAC, real
unions are prohibited from organizing in a particular workplace. These dummy
unions have been organized nationally and are put place to try to keep bona
fide unions from organizing. This was a conspiracy to deny people basic union
rights and freedoms.
If we were sincere about elevating the standards of
wages and working conditions of people in developing nations and using trade
agreements to help do that as an instrument, then we would require our trading
partners to adhere to the same standards of freedom and rights to association
for collective bargaining that we give our workers. The agreement is completely
and deliberately silent on that. We object to that. If nothing else it is a
missed opportunity for those of us who do genuinely care about international
development and moving society forward in a global way.
This is not the instrument to do that. Once again, this
is an instrument of exploitation. If we do not say it here, there is certainly
no opportunity for the working people of Costa Rica to object. This is
happening above and beyond any input from them.
I stand in solidarity with my fellow working people in
Costa Rica to object to this agreement and to any so-called free trade
agreement that does not recognize core labour standards, the right to free
collective bargaining and the basic principles that we take for granted in this
country.
People say that trade unionists object to free trade
agreements for selfish reasons because they are worried that their standard of
living will be dragged down. Frankly, if labour and commodities are cheaper in
one of our trading partner's country, there is nothing to stop Canadian or
American companies gravitating to that country for manufacturing
purposes.
I resent that and object to that position. I also
resent the argument that we are worried about losing our good paying
manufacturing jobs. We are worried. We would be crazy if we were not. The only
sensible thing Ross Perot ever said in the election in the states was with
regard to the great flushing sound of Canadian and American jobs racing to
Mexico with the first free trade agreement. We noticed that and have not fully
recovered from all the promises that those blue collar jobs would be replaced
with better paying jobs. That has not happened among the neighbours that I
know.
We are watching Canada negotiate badly on our behalf.
Every time it enters into a trade agreement we are dumbfounded. What kind of
negotiators are these people who negotiate on our behalf, go into these closed
door meetings and sign deals like this?
When I was in Quebec City, I was outside the fence
protesting while the negotiators were inside the fence signing yet another free
trade agreement. There is kind of a cruel irony there as well.
(1250)
This bill falls short of any of the lofty goals and
principles that are talked about in the preamble of the bill. If the government
were serious about doing something to move the global community forward in
terms of bringing less developed nations up to our standard of living, I could
endorse it.
The NDP caucus would happily buy into any kind of
agreement that would move society forward in that way. Bill C-32 and bills like
it keep people back. It does nothing to elevate the human condition on the
planet.
I put it to the House that the Canada-Cost Rica a free
trade agreement is less about eliminating trades and tariffs and more about
institutionalizing a freedom that global capital enjoys today. It enshrines it
in such a way that even freely elected democratic institutions like parliament
cannot touch.
Members are made irrelevant by agreements like this
one. Renato Ruggier, head of the WTO, said that there was a surplus of
democracy in the world that was getting in the way of the free movement of
goods, services and capital, and that therefore we needed free trade agreements
to bypass annoying nuisances such as legislatures, parliaments, et
cetera.
The best example is Ethyl Corporation. I am sure hon.
members heard this case cited before in the House of Commons. We as a nation
decided that it was bad to have MMT in our atmosphere and environment. MMT is
poison as a gasoline additive; it kills people and causes cancer. We decided to
ban and outlaw it.
However Ethyl Corporation which produces MMT said that
we could not do that. It said that we were interfering with its right to
capitalize on selling MMT. In other words there was a lost opportunity. It sued
the Government of Canada because it had nation state status under the free
trade agreements.
A company can sue a country because we allocated a
nation state status to a corporate entity and it won. We had to back off. We
had to pay it damages for lost opportunity because we as a nation decided that
for our children's benefit we would ban a toxic chemical as a gasoline
additive.
It was ruled that we could not do that any more.
Somebody traded our right away. Some bright eyed negotiator on behalf of the
Canadian government signed away our ability to protect our own environment in a
free trade agreement.
It is not being alarmist to raise these issues. These
are legitimate concerns and I am horrified by that. What did these people agree
to? It is like sending Jack to the market with a cow and he comes back with
three beans. There is no guarantee that any of those beans will even sprout. It
is a serious concern and a legitimate issue.
Our NDP caucus, along with a significant number of
Canadians who are concerned about the globalization of capital and the free for
all interest in the free trade agreements, is disappointed. Speaking on their
behalf, we are very concerned that we have failed to represent the real issues
at hand.
If it is our goal, duty and obligation as elected
members of parliament to elevate the human condition and to move society
forward, how can we knowingly sign on to something like this which has the
reverse effect? It broadens the gap between rich and poor by enshrining bad
behaviour. It institutionalizes irresponsible corporate behaviour and locks
people in developing nations into that situation and holds them
back.
There is a missed opportunity here. This free trade
agreement should specify that if a country wants to trade with Canada its
standards of labour conditions have to be elevated in harmony to those of
Canada. Otherwise Canada would not trade with it. If it wants to do business
with Canada it must do something about the abominable, wretched labour
conditions in its country.
We would then be using our position of privilege as a
nation to help raise standards in that country. However there is no mention of
that here. When we raise it we are told that it is a deal between economies,
not countries, and that it is not our job to deal with social issues.
We are told that we cannot do anything about child
labour, but if those children were burning bootleg CDs the economic community
would intervene in a minute. It would be down there in a second to protect its
intellectual property. In some cases it acts very quickly. In other cases it
says child labour is not its issue. We should wait until child labour is
bootlegging CDs to see how quickly it acts.
(1255)
Bill C-32 does not deserve our support. It does not
achieve what it should achieve as a free trade agreement. If the government
were serious about free and fair trade this would be a far different
bill.
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the good people of Costa Rica
rest well at night knowing the member from Winnipeg is standing up for their
human rights, particularly given that Costa Rica has proportional
representation, something the NDP likes but Canada does not have.
Costa Rica has a constitutional democracy and a
presidential system. The president is elected for a four year term and can only
be in office for one term. He can then run after eight years. It has 57 members
in its legislature, which is a unicameral legislature, and a two-thirds vote of
the legislature is required to change the constitution. Costa Rica has more
checks and balances in its domestic law than we do.
A Canadian member of parliament states that he will
lance any injustices that happen in Costa Rica. He also says that parliament
has been rendered irrelevant and he references the MMT decision. The MMT
decision proved that parliament had power because it was taken to court. That
decision consistently gets misrepresented by the radical left in the
House.
The MMT decision stated that according to the law put
in place by the Government of Canada one could not import or export MMT. It was
a badly written law given the realities of free trade. Free trade mandates a
level playing field. A properly written law would have said that people were
banned from possessing MMT on Canadian soil. In that way everyone would have
been banned from possessing MMT and it would not have prejudiced Canadian
people who were importing or exporting it. The law must be applied equally to
everyone.
That is a standard of equality that I thought was the
foundation of the NDP. The law was badly written and it did not prove that
legislatures were irrelevant. In fact it proved the exact opposite.
The member says that free trade deals have a negative
impact on human rights. I hesitate taking that as a credible source after the
NDP bashed and attacked Suharto, the former president of Indonesia, when he
came to the University of British Columbia. At the same time the British
Columbia NDP were holding policy conferences in Havana, Cuba, like it did last
year. Cuba is a country where Fidel Castro has driven out, incarcerated, or
murdered one-fifth of the population.
I also question the veracity of the NDP when it says
that it is protecting human rights and that it is opposed to free trade unless
it enhances human rights.
Given that he is so in favour of international
standards for human, labour and environmental rights, did he communicate that
to NDP Premiers Romanow, Dosanjh and Doer when they went on the team Canada
trade mission to China, given China's record on the environment vis-à-vis the
Three Gorges dam and its human rights approach to Falun Gong and labour
standards? Has he given the same preaching sermon to the NDP premiers of those
provinces?
(1300)
Mr. Pat Martin:
Mr. Speaker, that is probably the longest question in
the history of the House of Commons. The member did come to the point so I
suppose he deserves a response.
It is our position that the Canada-Costa Rica free
trade agreement is more notable for its omissions than what is in it. When we
talk about core labour, environmental standards and basic human rights issues
it is not just the NDP talking. We are not the enemy here. We are not the only
voice in the wilderness calling for these things. It is the ILO, the United
Nations, and international NGOs from around the world that are calling for a
more progressive attitude toward our trade policies.
I know the hon. member has a thing about the NDP. He
wants to place us as the enemy or the lone voice on this issue. In actual fact
the rest of the world agrees with us. Most of the developed nations are
questioning their role and trade as an aspect of their overall policy.
I will use the European Union as an example. If free
trade agreements were comparable to the economic harmonization within the
European Union, we would not have any objections and I would not be standing
here complaining. However in that case one is dealing with countries that are a
lot more similar in size and shape. There is not the incredible imbalance in
the power structure between the two signatories.
I have used the example of when the lion lays down with
the lamb, the lamb does not get much sleep. That has never been truer than in a
situation like this one. It is an overwhelming imbalance in the power
relationship between the two signatories to this agreement.
That is not true in the European Union. It is finding
consensus and agreement that took 20 years to negotiate. The agreements at the
European Union were not written on the back of a napkin.
The deal we have here was signed at the Quebec summit.
While we were protesting outside the fence the deal was being signed inside the
fence. It was a hasty and flawed job because it failed to address the real
issues that most people care about. These are issues that would affect the
quality of life of the people in those countries.
What else matters? If profit is the only motive then we
have a satisfactory document. However it falls short if it was intended to
elevate the human condition by using trade agreements. There is nothing radical
about an observation like that. It is an objective opinion that we could do
better.
It is a missed opportunity any time we enter into one
of these trade deals that does not use every tool in our toolbox to try to
elevate the human condition. What else is it all about and why else are we
here?
I resent the tone and the content of the hon. member's
intervention because it fails to appreciate the legitimate concerns I am trying
to raise. I speak for a significant percentage of the population when I do
that.
(1305)
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as part of the government I speak for a
more significant part of the Canadian population in that survey after survey
has shown that over 70% of Canadians support freer and liberalized trade.
Therefore I will stand with the 70% and my colleague from Winnipeg Centre can
stand with the 30% if he chooses.
I listened to his remarks and several times he cited
that the EU as a great example in trade agreements. I attended on behalf of the
Minister for International Trade a trade discussion day concerning less
developed countries. I hope my colleague will listen to this point because I
will ask him a specific question and expect a specific answer with no ducking.
At that trade discussion day EU ministers of
development were categorically opposed to including labour agreements in trade
deals. The very EU ministers that he cites with such praise were categorically
opposed, led my none other than the U.K. minister, Clare Short.
Would my colleague from Winnipeg Centre tell us why the
NDP seems to be one of the few voices anywhere in the world that is insisting
that labour agreements be included in trade deals, when almost everyone else
including his cousins in the U.K. labour party is saying that it would lead to
back door protectionism?
How could the member ignore the comments of a man like
Kofi Annan who said that liberalized and globalized free trade are the best
possible courses of action we can take to help the poor countries my colleague
addressed in his comments?
I have never had an answer from the NDP on those two
points, so I am anxiously awaiting one now.
Mr. Pat Martin:
Mr. Speaker, life must be so simple when one is a
Liberal. It must be really convenient to be such a gifted chameleon, to
flip-flop from one's position.
I remember the Liberals in the late 1980s and early
1990s arguing and opposing free trade vehemently and vigorously. They had
passionate debates saying that free trade would bring us down and that Brian
Mulroney was evil for trying to foist free trade upon us. Today they have
conveniently flip-flopped and are now the champions, the vanguards of the free
trade movement. It must be really easy to be a Liberal. I guess that is why
there are so many Liberals, it is so bloody easy.
When labour issues are raised within free trade
agreements, the side agreements are so hopelessly feckless, absolutely useless,
that no workers ever get any satisfaction from them. That is why we are saying
they should be within the actual document, not in some parallel side accord.
Those side accords have never given satisfaction to the grieving
parties.
If they set up an institution that is completely
feckless, they are dooming it to failure, and it is a deliberate thing. There
was a conscious choice to not put those terms and conditions within the
contract and to put them on a side deal because they would brush those issues
off to the side so nothing would interfere or interrupt with the free movement
of goods and services of capital, not even the legitimate grievances of working
people who are being affected in a negative way by these issues.
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to
hopefully contribute somewhat to the debate before the House on Bill
C-32.
I do not necessarily attach myself to very much, if
anything, that the previous speaker puts before the House other than to say
that at the very least his party and he himself have been consistent in their
approach to this issue.
The member spoke in his remarks about Jack and the
Beanstalk. I am reminded of other fairytale red book promises that pertain
to this issue of free trade.
As I listened to the member, I could not help but think
that the current Prime Minister would have been on the other side of the
barrier in Quebec City if that free trade negotiation had taken place in the
1980s. He would have been out there with the protestors. He would have been
espousing the complete opposite position that his current government is
presenting through Bill C-32.
However, we are certainly glad that the Prime Minister
has seen the error of his ways and recognizes that this is a global trend and
the direction in which countries, not only in North America but countries
worldwide, are headed in terms of liberalizing trade to the benefit of those
participating countries.
That is not to say that it does not take a great deal
of intellect and a great deal of effort in negotiating these agreements to see
that they are beneficial. I will give the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre and
his party their due. They raise very important issues that pertain to human
rights, working conditions and the type of social issues that are very often
given short shrift in these negotiations. We do know that the multinationals
and companies that engage in trade are interested in the bottom line. There are
national state concerns that often should be addressed during these
negotiations.
The bill recognizes that a Central American country,
like Costa Rica, is a very dynamic and developing country. This is a country
that arguably has led the way for that region of the world. As other members
have pointed out, this small country is a very interactive, democratic country.
It has implemented a new constitution. It has a bicameral system of parliament.
It has checks and balances which, in many ways, we ourselves might learn
from.
Former President Arias hosted the first meeting that
was the precursor to the North American Free Trade Agreement. The diplomatic
skills exercised by Costa Rican politicians are very admirable on a number of
levels.
Of interest is the fact that Costa Rica has no military
budget. It has a national police force but much of its resources and much of
its governmental focus is on trade, which is beneficial to those countries that
wish to participate, as Canada will, under this new agreement.
In terms of Central American standards, Costa Rica is
very much at the forefront. It has been very proactive in reaching out not only
to Mexico and the United States but now, through this agreement, it is looking
north. It is exploring new markets looking for ways in which it can export its
raw and manufactured materials and looking to improve the standard of living
and the quality of life for its citizens by enabling access to goods and
services to which it might not otherwise have access.
Costa Rica has a very extensive program for social
housing which would be of interest to many Canadians. A number of Canadian
construction companies have played a very active role in Costa Rica's attempt
to provide adequate shelter and housing for its citizens.
Opportunities for both participants in this agreement
abound. Costa Rica has co-operated closely in the past with other countries. It
has exhibited the goodwill that is tantamount to a good basis of bridge
building when it comes to trade.
Some of the purposes behind Bill C-32 will evolve over
time. Much like the commentary we hear quite often about the benefits of trade,
time will tell.
(1310)
I would be quick to point out that some of the same
arguments that we have heard against this agreement were heard prior to 1988.
In fact some of the members opposite on the government side, who are now
wrapping their arms around the legislation, endorsing it and espousing its
virtues, were the same members who stood on this side of the House and berated
the government of Brian Mulroney and the Conservative Party of Canada for
taking the initiative, for spending the political capital that is sometimes
necessary, and for taking the risk that is sometimes necessary for the good of
the country.
I think even the most critical of individuals in
viewing free trade would have to admit that huge benefits have accrued to this
country, particularly for the people of western Canada who are very much the
beneficiaries of this particular practice of free trade.
Bill C-32 would implement all the negotiation that took
place leading up to this bill. I believe the agreement itself was signed in
April 2000. Miguel Angel Rodriguez, the president of Costa Rica, was here in
Canada signing the agreement, and the bill would put those elements into
effect.
It is quite clear that Costa Rica's economy is growing
and expanding rapidly, arguably not at a rate that we would consider rapid by
North American standards, but it is certainly moving in a direction that will
help its citizens, help to improve conditions and help to improve those very
essential things that all humanitarians should be concerned about.
This is a chance for Costa Rica. This is a legitimate
opportunity that it hopes to seize upon. To its credit, it has been very
proactive in looking at other countries' economies and trying to find a way in
which it can be a greater participant in those economies.
The agreement itself will be two way in terms of the
merchandise exchanged between Canada and Costa Rica. It is interesting to note
that in the year 2000 the trade between our two nations rose by $269 million
according to figures. That was a jump of 25% over that short period of time.
The agreement itself would naturally accelerate that growth.
We have to take into account, as others have, the
difference in size of economy and levels of development. However I believe
there is a mechanism that is supposed to help integrate this trade system, this
difference in the size of the economy and that is that Canada will, more or
less, move at a more rapid rate in terms of liberalizing trade. Our economy
will be more open to Costa Rican products at a faster rate. The lack of tariffs
will be phased in in Canada over eight years, whereas in the Costa Rican
example it will be over fourteen years.
Our borders will be open at an earlier rate allowing
Costa Rica to tap into the Canadian market somewhat quicker, taking into
account this difference in size and scale of economy.
I would suggest that the overall benefit to eliminating
the trade barriers is to facilitate these goods and services at an accelerated
rate and facilitate and promote conditions of fair competition that are the
underpinnings of any free trade agreement. Those are set out in some detail by
the enactment of this bill. It would also establish a framework for further
bilateral, regional and multilateral co-operation to expand throughout the
years and create effective procedures for implementation and application of the
agreement.
Also built into this contract, as in any contract, are
methods of dispute resolution and of monitoring the progress. Where disputes
might break out there will be a procedure that can be followed to try to
resolve those types of disputes.
Some of the products that will be affected in the short
term will include fruit, coffee, raw sugar, gold, flowers and jams, Costa Rican
imports that we currently see quite often on the Canadian market.
(1315)
The trade agreement will allow those products to come
into Canada with ease, with fewer tariffs in the coming years, and will allow
those companies, because of their climate and agricultural potential, a greater
market and potential for growth and therefore a higher standard of living when
they achieve the success they badly want.
On the other hand, Canada currently exports to Costa
Rica paper, wheat, potato products and automotive parts. When I think of
potatoes I will not say the solicitor general. I am obviously thinking of the
potato crisis Prince Edward Islanders have faced in recent years and the great
potential the agreement will provide for them.
They suffered through two abysmal years in terms of
their potato exports because of the potato wart which was blown hugely out of
proportion. We were virtually excluded from entering the American market. This
will provide a new and large market for potato products.
For provinces like Prince Edward Island I would suggest
that Bill C-32, which brings to effect free trade with Costa Rica, will expand
their potential and help island potato farmers explore this new
market.
I draw attention to some of the other positive elements
of the agreement that include building up the free trade of the Americas, which
links the 34 countries currently in North America that are working with South
America. That unfortunately is something upon which perhaps we have not focused
enough. The expanding markets in Central America and in all of South America is
the direction in which we recognize we are moving.
Canada has taken a much more inclusive view and can
play a much more active leadership role in this regard. I would suggest that
this step is very much reflective and representative of Canada's leadership
role.
Canada's national identity, the Canadian economy and
our competitiveness as a trading nation are areas of which we have to be very
conscious. We have to be innovative. We have to portray ourselves as a country
that is ready and willing to take part in this vibrant new economy.
That was the intent behind the original free trade
agreement with the United States, followed up by NAFTA. This is a natural
extension of the direction in which the Canadian economy is moving.
The Government of Canada, Canadian producers and
Canadian manufacturers can benefit if we go about this in an intelligent and
aggressive way.
About 94% of Canada's current agriculture and agri-food
exports to Costa Rica will get better access as a direct result of the
implementation of this bill. Goodness knows we need to make extraordinary
efforts at this time to help our farmers with the drought situation that has
been endured in western Canada.
Throughout the country there have been extreme weather
conditions and climate turns which have grossly affected the ability of the
agricultural industry in Canada. Blueberry farmers in the province of Nova
Scotia have suffered great hardships due to the dry conditions this past
summer.
When we sign agreements with countries like Costa Rica
and other South American and Central American countries, it opens up new
markets for our agricultural industry. Canada's exporters will gain an
important advantage over some of their principle competitors in Costa Rica,
including American, European and Asian suppliers.
Therefore, by giving Costa Ricans preferential trade
partners in North America we can be competitive with some of those other
countries that have in the past associated themselves and traded with Costa
Rica. Costa Ricans hopefully will be looking to Canada as opposed to some of
the far off European countries to which in the past there has been a propensity
for Costa Ricans to turn.
As with every trade agreement and contractual
obligation there are concerns that have to be examined and kept in mind. There
are shared concerns on the part of Costa Ricans and Canadians.
(1320)
As I understand it, Costa Rica currently exports only
raw sugar and does not refine sugar within its own boundaries. In the event
that Costa Rica as a result of the trade agreement starts to construct
refineries and export refined sugar, Canadian sugar producers would have real
concern. They have expressed concern already. I know that the member for Saint
John has long been a proponent of protecting and assisting the sugar refining
industry in her province of New Brunswick. This is one issue that has been
raised by sugar producers in Canada as a direct upshot of the proposed
agreement. Costa Rica is also a labour intensive country. Having just said that
there may be benefits to the increased open market for potato farmers, I will
note that some producers have raised concerns about the impact on frozen
potatoes exported to Costa Rica from Canada.
These are a just couple of industry related concerns
that have been raised by Canadians who would be impacted directly by Bill
C-32.
Canada has an obligation to enter into these agreements
in good faith and to maintain good bilateral relations with our other
significant trading partners. At the same time we have to diversify the market
and seek additional international trade agreements. That is exactly what the
bill would do.
The direction in which we are headed is very much one
the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition
supports. It has been our consistent position in doing so that Canada must play
a leading and aggressive role at a time when countries are re-examining their
relations with other countries vis-à-vis trade and security and on any number
of levels.
To that end there is implicit in all our efforts an
emphasis on the responsibility of government to proceed with caution but also,
I would suggest, with some degree of aggression when looking for new markets to
bolster the Canadian economy to ensure that we are competitive and innovative
in a very competitive global time.
We support the initiative. We support the direction of
Bill C-32 and similar types of agreements. It is imperative as well that we in
the Parliament of Canada have an opportunity to have our say and to have input.
We must look at the bill at the committee level. We must hear from witnesses
who have specific information about the countries in question, the pros and
cons of the agreement, the benefits and the contractual obligations that will
flow from it.
On balance we feel it is good legislation that is
consistent with the direction in which Canada is headed. We feel it would help
Canadian producers engage in free markets and it would raise access to products
by lowering tariffs.
To that end and for those reasons set out, the
coalition will be supporting the legislation. We look forward to its
implementation. We hope to see the government play a leadership role in its new
and, I would submit, post-1993 support of free trade agreements.
This is the type of legislation Canada needs if it is
to be a global competitor in the 21st century.
(1325)
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments
of the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish-Guysborough. I certainly appreciate
his support for Bill C-32, the agreement with Costa Rica, and his recognition
of its benefits to Canadian exports like blueberries from Nova Scotia, potatoes
from P.E.I. and others.
It was an interesting contrast to hear him after
hearing the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre. The hon. member from the NDP seemed
to suggest we could not find other countries that would want side agreements on
labour and the degree of these things does not matter. It seems the NDP wants a
one party agreement, a one person agreement, or a one country agreement. With
that kind of position it is no wonder it has so little support .
I also want to reflect on what my hon. colleague from
Pictou--Antigonish-Guysborough said. He took us back in time to the late
eighties and the period of the negotiations over free trade. It struck me at
the time--
The Deputy Speaker:
I will attempt to do this in the spirit of fairness. At
1.30 I have to proceed to private members' business. I would like to give the
hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough about a half a minute to reply
and close the debate for this day. I do that out of a spirit of fairness for
two good members of parliament from Nova Scotia.
(1330)
Mr. Peter MacKay:
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiments of my Bluenose
colleague about the benefits that can flow from free trade. Free trade is not
meant in any way to benefit one region over another. It is, as he would be the
first to admit, something that has national benefits.
This is comprehensive legislation. Although it may be
described as flowery in language, there is a great deal of pith and substance
to it. Bill C-32 touches on parallel accords, environmental co-operation and
labour co-operation. It is the type of legislation we should be getting our
teeth into. We should be holding it up as progress in the area of trade for
Canada.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
[Translation]
Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid
Laurier Day Act
The House resumed from September 24 consideration of the
motion that Bill S-14, an act respecting Sir
John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval
Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-14, to
establish a national holiday in honour of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid
Laurier.
The decision to establish a national holiday in honour
of a parliamentarian or any other person may seem unimportant to some people,
but not to the Bloc Quebecois.
This bill aims to pay tribute to the very first Prime
Minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald, as well as to the first Prime
Minister from Quebec, Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
John A. Macdonald worked relentlessly for an extremely
centralized federation in Canada, while Sir Wilfrid Laurier fought very hard to
protect Canadian unity, at the expense of the progress of his own
people.
This bill would give Canadians the opportunity to
reflect on the history of their country and to be proud of the contribution of
these two men to Canada and to all of its communities. Do members really think
that the people of Quebec will feel like celebrating on such a day? I do not
think so.
In the minds of Quebecers, John A. Macdonald wanted to
give the impression he was negotiating the terms of federation with Taché and
Cartier. Later on, some would go as far as to talk about a confederal treaty
when talking about the so-called consensus that is supposed to have taken place
before the British North America Act was passed.
It bears reminding that when Lower Canada joined Canada
in 1867, it was by a very slight majority, 24 against 22. Needless to say we
are talking about parliamentarians who were duly mandated to speak on behalf of
the people, but the people were not consulted.
In fact, the British North America Act is drafted in
such a way that instead it envisions a very centralized state made up of
provinces—which is a far cry, you will admit, from the concept of sovereign
states—without in fact the exclusive authority to pass and implement laws
without interference from the central government. This historical ambiguity
regarding the creation of a Canadian federation or Canadian confederation could
only lead to numerous problems later on, both for Canada and Quebec.
Lower Canada displayed a lukewarm interest in what some
mistakenly called a confederal treaty but was in fact a constitutional soup by
chef John A. Macdonald, seasoned with a unitary, centralized and centralizing
federal regime.
As for Sir Wilfrid Laurier, he indeed worked very hard
to unite the Canadian federation. His 15 year government was marked by a lot of
tension: on the one side, French Canadians, who were afraid of being
assimilated, and rightly so; on the other, English Canadians, who wanted to
have closer ties to the British Empire.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier governed Canada by trying to find a
middle ground and keep the country together. Today, the current government's
approach, true to Wilfrid Laurier's ideal, espouses the strategy of Pierre
Elliott Trudeau, who wrote that of the ways of making separatism less appealing
is to spend time, energy and a lot of money to promote federal nationalism.
Such is the goal of Bill S-14.
(1335)
The establishment of holidays to celebrate John A.
Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier is part of that strategy. All Quebecers know
that the federal government does not hesitate to spend millions of dollars in
public funds to promote the Canadian identity. And what about the virtual
monopoly of federalist forces on the media?
In his book Le déclin du fédéralisme canadien,
Joseph Facal, the Quebec minister for relations with the citizens and
immigration, minister of Canadian intergovernmental affairs, and minister for
relations with French-speaking and Acadian communities, wrote this:
The federal government takes a subtle
and seemingly generous attitude when it professes to recognize the different
identities, the Quebec identity included. What it refuses to this particular
identity is its full access to a collective, institutional and political
expression. This can be seen in the incapacity of the Canadian constitutional
order to recognize the fact that Quebec is a nation, in its refusal to
institutionalize its definition of Quebec's specific character, and its
untiring efforts to control Quebec's international relations. |
Since 1867, Quebec has been held back because of the
numerous barriers the federal government has put up. All of this stifles the
social, cultural and economic development of the Quebec people.
Amongst all the days celebrated in Canada, whether
national or international days, only one commemorates a person. And, would you
have guessed, it is Queen Victoria. No other person is honoured in such a way.
Previous parliaments may have recognized that in cases like this, and many
others, discretion is usually the better part of valour.
There are many ways to commemorate the role that men
and women have played in politics: streets, parks, cities, government
buildings, ports, airports, statues, highways, aircraft carriers, ice-breakers,
stamps, libraries, sportsplexes and what not.
A national day that is not representative of a wide
consensus is a moot one and it can easily be considered as arrogant.
I call upon the common sense of all parliamentarians.
They should vote against Bill S-14 to prevent a precedent that could create
pointless tensions. If we create a day for John A. Macdonald and a day for Sir
Wilfrid Laurier now, when will we create one for the prime minister who is
responsible for free trade? When will we create one for the prime minister who
unilaterally patriated the Constitution? When will we create one for the prime
minister who stayed in office the longest? The answer is obvious.
I find it extremely dangerous for Canada to start
commemorating everything. It is clear that the Bloc Quebecois will vote against
this bill. I hope there still are sensible people in this parliament.
(1340)
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I was born on a small tropical island,
then a British colony, located on the other side of the world.
Like hundreds of thousands before and after me, I came
to Canada to find peace and stability for myself and for my children. Canada is
my country, and I feel deeply attached to it. I am most grateful for the spirit
of openness, tolerance and generosity that I have always found here.
This is why I am truly honoured to pay tribute to two
men who played a most important role in our history, Sir John A. Macdonald and
Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Indeed, it is no doubt to these two statesmen and prime
ministers that we owe the values that have characterized Canada since its
founding and that have made Canada a country that respects others and is
peaceful, a country that is open to the world and most welcoming, a democratic
country where individual rights and freedoms are truly promoted and defended.
When thinking about Macdonald and Laurier and the
enormous political and socio-cultural heritage they have left us, differences
in parties, language or origin become blurred.
One was a Conservative; the other was a Liberal. One
was of Scottish origin, therefore anglophone; the other was French Canadian.
Macdonald was a Protestant; Laurier was a Catholic.
They were from different origins and different
backgrounds. Yet, they were united by something that was far more important
than their differences, that is their vision and their faith in this new
country that they were about to create and shape for the future.
[English]
The sum of Macdonald's and Laurier's contribution to
the building of Canada and the values it represents is so immense that it
dwarfs the differences of party, of cultural origin and of religion and makes
those seem trifling. It also dwarfs the many missteps along the way for indeed
there were missteps, as there must always be when building a country and
running governments.
Builders, creators and visionaries all saw in the
vastness of this beautiful land not only new horizons to reach but a new type
of country where the two founding cultures and languages could not only coexist
but flourish, where the broad expanses and spaces could welcome settlers and
new citizens from elsewhere to a life, in the words of Laurier himself, of
“peace, harmony and prosperity”.
The challenge of joining one coast of this immense land
mass to the other by building a railway was in itself a gigantic undertaking
and feat, especially given the context and conditions of the day. If that was a
gigantic undertaking and feat, how even more remarkable was the founding of a
new and bilingual country open to others and dedicated to democracy, to freedom
and to diversity.
When we view statistics and comparisons, we see that
Canada remains a modest contender in the bigness stakes. We have a
comparatively small population. Our economy is dwarfed by several others. Our
military power is very limited. If countries were to be judged by population,
their GNP size, or the might of their military arsenal, Canada would be a very
moderate success.
The country Macdonald and Laurier sought to build was
not a powerful one in the quantitative sense but a new type of country, one of
ideals and values that would transcend statistics and numbers. What they have
left us beyond infrastructures and material achievements and prosperity,
important and impressive as those are, is an infinitely more precious legacy.
In the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself: “It is to our glory that hatreds
have ended on Canadian soil. There is no longer any family here but the human
family. It matters not what language the people speak or at which altars they
kneel. There is glory in this fraternity of which Canada can never be proud
enough. Mighty nations indeed may well come to us to seek a lesson in justice
and humanity”.
Yes, their legacy is above all that of our enduring
democracy, cherishing its core values of peace and peaceful assembly, of
individual freedoms and respect for others and their differences, of openness
and generosity to others less fortunate than ourselves.
So it is for the lasting achievement of these values
and ideals which have marked the building and evolution of Canada that I feel
privileged to honour Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier today. It is
with pride and conviction that I join Senator John Lynch-Staunton and my
colleague from Don Valley West and so many other colleagues from all sides of
the House and Senate in supporting Bill S-14 and wishing it Godspeed. I pray
that we find a large majority here to support the bill and make it a
statute.
(1345)
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Bill S-8 would set aside two days, January
8 and November 20, as national memorial days, but not actually statutory
holidays, in honour of arguably the two greatest prime ministers of this
country, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
In making these two days memorial or remembrance days
we are giving them a status similar to the status given to Remembrance Day,
November 11, for example, as opposed to Canada Day, which is of course a day on
which work ought not to be performed. There is a distinction there that I think
is important.
This bill is significant for its symbolic value and for
what it says about what we think about these two figures and therefore what we
think about ourselves. It is a sense of our own picture of our history. In our
view of our own history, in our national mythology, we are in fact building our
image of ourselves and our attitudes towards the world.
This is a question of particular interest to me. In my
private life I am a Ph.D. candidate in history at Carleton University, working
on a doctoral dissertation on evolving Canadian attitudes toward the monarchy.
I see some parallels in the studies I have done on evolving Canadian attitudes
toward the monarchy and the kinds of evolving attitudes we have had over time
toward our historical figures, including of course the great Sir John A. and
the great Sir Wilfrid.
Just to draw out the analogy a bit, the monarchy in the
eyes of a man like Maurice Duplessis, and in his words at the time of the world
visit of 1939, was dramatically different from the status of the monarchy in
the eyes of the Quebec nationalists who greeted Queen Elizabeth when she
visited Montreal about 30 years later in 1964. This was because the perceptions
of the world had changed. The symbolic value that was given to the monarchy and
to the visiting monarch had changed over that period of time.
The same thing of course can be said of our views
toward Sir John A. and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Keeping this thought in mind, the
most striking thing to be said is the very fact that we have never previously
set aside the birthdates of either of these two men as national memorial days.
That in itself says a great deal about our attitudes, not only toward them but
toward ourselves and our own history.
I think there are probably two reasons why this is the
case. First, until recently Sir John A. and Sir Wilfrid to some degree were
seen as partisan figures, in much the same way that in the decades following
their deaths Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson were seen respectively as
being a northern republican and a symbol of division rather than of unity, and
a southern agrarian democrat and perhaps also a symbol of division rather than
unity. Later on as the partisan considerations faded, their overarching
greatness was recognized and they were properly memorialized and honoured. Of
course in the case of Jefferson, no holiday has been set aside for his birthday
but there is a beautiful monument in Washington, and of course everybody knows
about the Lincoln monument. I think there is still a little bit of this element
with Sir John A. and Sir Wilfrid. Of course they died much more recently than
either Lincoln or Jefferson.
A predecessor bill to this one, honouring only Sir John
A., was introduced in the last parliament by my hon. colleague from Calgary
Southeast . There was some discussion at the time as to whether it was
appropriate to honour a representative of the Conservative stream in Canada
without similarly honouring a representative of the Liberal stream. I would
suggest that this is perhaps an indication that we have not yet matured in our
views toward these two men. I would suggest that while it is entirely
appropriate to honour Sir Wilfrid, and I am glad that he is being honoured
here, it is appropriate not because he was a Liberal and Sir John A. was a
Conservative. It is appropriate because they were both men of extraordinary
vision.
The second reason that I think we failed in the past to
honour these two men is that for decades we saw ourselves, our Canadian
identity, as being subservient to another identity. It seems pretty clear that
we saw ourselves as being primarily British for at least the first half century
of Canada's history as a confederated country.
(1350)
The great holiday of the 1920s and 1930s that went on
and did not vanish in Ontario until the 1960s was Empire Day, later
Commonwealth Day. That was a celebration of our perceived Britishness. That of
course has diminished over time. As the diminution of that particular identity
has taken place, it has seemed more appropriate to honour clearly and primarily
Canadian figures.
As we memorialize and mythologize these men, it seems
to me it is appropriate that we recognize them not only for the way in which
they governed us during their lifetimes, and if one gets into the details of
how they governed us, of course they governed in this place, with its
adversarial politics and its partisanship, with a fair bit of what could be
called sausage making. As one tries to produce laws, there is a bit that is
perhaps not all that attractive. I do not think we are memorializing them for
that. I think we are memorializing them for some over-arching values they
represent.
I suggest that there are five overarching values which
each of these two men represent and which we ought to make reference to as we
proceed to honour them.
First, both men were clearly reconcilers of competing
interests, competing ideologies and competing regions. This is evident in the
fact that both men were able to cobble together out of the extraordinarily
diverse Canadian political landscape two remarkably effective and long-lasting
coalitions. Sir John A. Macdonald was able to govern for 19 years and Sir
Wilfrid Laurier from 1896 to 1911 in an unbroken streak that has never been
matched.
They were able to obtain representation from all
regions of the country. They were able to represent the two great competing
religious bases that at the time represented a great division within Canadian
politics, to represent both linguistic groups in the country, to represent both
longstanding Canadian interests and more recent arrivals to Canada. They were
extraordinarily effective in that. That clearly is a primary value in the
politics of a diverse country like Canada.
Second, we should honour them as parliamentarians and
for their profound respect for this institution.
Of course Sir John A. Macdonald was eminent in actually
creating this institution in its present form out of its predecessor, the
parliament of the province of Canada. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was known for, among
other things, his encyclopaedic knowledge of parliamentary rules of procedure
and precedent and for his ability to converse fluently in these matters in both
languages.
Third, we should recognize them as
constitutionalists.
Sir John A. Macdonald's greatest accomplishment perhaps
was that he was able to create for the first time anywhere in the world a
constitution that combined the unwritten constitutional foundation of the
British system and the written constitutionalism, and indeed federation, of the
American model. This is a model that has been achieved with remarkable success
in Canada and later on was emulated in Australia. It is indeed an absolutely
extraordinary accomplishment that should make all of us very proud or at least
very grateful to him.
Fourth, we should honour them as
federalists.
It is interesting to note that in 1867, Sir John A.
Macdonald really in his heart of hearts would have favoured what was referred
to in those days as a legislative union, which meant of course a unitary state.
At that time, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was of course a young man in private
life, was actually a separatist. He would have liked to have taken Quebec out
of Canada and worked on some new deal. He spoke quite strongly against the new
arrangement in his newspaper at the time.
But through the union of the centripetal forces
personified in Sir John A. Macdonald and the centrifugal decentralist forces
personified in Sir Wilfrid Laurier, we have in fact achieved a model of
federalism which, despite perhaps some maladministration in the intervening
century, has functioned remarkably well. It has remained generally and
genuinely federal to a greater extent than many other federations, indeed most
other nominal federations around the world.
Fifth and last, I think we should honour both these men
as extraordinary visionaries.
(1355)
Of course the vision of Sir John A. was confederation
itself. Sir Wilfrid Laurier is known best of all for his comment that the 20th
century would belong to Canada, perhaps not in the sense that Canada would be
the dominant world power, but in the sense that Canada would provide an
extraordinary vision which so many other countries around the world could
emulate.
In conclusion, I do very much support the bill. I hope
other parliamentarians will do the same.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see what would motivate
people to put forward a bill like Bill S-14 to honour two great leaders of our
country. I understand what motivated them. I understand why they are doing it,
but I do not agree that it is good idea for the same reasons expressed by my
colleague from Laval Centre who really begged the question, where does it end?
If we do allocate a memorial day for those two prime
ministers, what prime minister would not want a day dedicated to him or her? It
would open a can of worms; it would open the door to an area where we do not
want to go.
I understand why Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid
Laurier were singled out. We should take special measures to honour and respect
the enormous contributions that these two leaders have made to our country.
There is an irony here as well. As we see the Liberal government honour Sir A.
Macdonald for the great things that he did in cobbling together a federation, a
very bold move, we see this particular Liberal government taking deliberate
steps to dismantle the whole idea of a strong central government.
The very vision of Sir John A. Macdonald which we seek
to recognize, the Liberals are taking active steps to dismantle, that very same
strong central confederation. It is worth noting what an achievement it was to
pull together a confederation and to make the conscious choice to form a
federation rather than a single state.
Federations are the hardest form of government in the
world to keep together. Of all the world's countries, I believe less than 20
are federations for that very reason. It is very difficult to pacify all the
competing interests and the regionalism that goes together. Of those 20
federations in the world, India is the most populous. The United States is
probably the most powerful and wealthiest. Even the United States only lasted
75 years before bursting into a bloody civil war.
Of those 20 federal states in the world, three in
recent times have either disappeared or are at risk. I refer to the Soviet
Union and Yugoslavia, and Canada which is just hanging on by a thread. It is a
very tenuous form of government. It is very difficult to keep a federation
together. Sir John A. Macdonald to his credit pulled it together. It is a bit
ironic to see the government, or individual members of the Liberal government,
promoting a day to honour the founder of confederation when they themselves are
actively taking steps to weaken the whole concept of a strong central state
through the devolution of power to the provinces and a diminishing role for the
federal government.
We should recognize Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Again, I do
not believe in a memorial day but we should recognize the enormous contribution
that he made to basic democracy. He is the man who gave us the secret ballot
vote. That is significant. Something we take for granted as always being there
was not always there until someone like Sir Wilfrid Laurier came along and said
that in the interests of fairness, in the interests of true democracy, this is
the way we are going to do things.
I refer to the public schools act. With true vision Sir
Wilfrid Laurier and his government decided that school should be free of charge
until grade 12, and that financial status should not be a barrier because that
is what people need to take part in the workforce today.
Again, it is ironic to see the government seeking to
honour the founder of the public school system with a memorial day when it
itself is taking active steps to preclude the participation in post-secondary
education. If anything, if the government wanted to dedicate a couple of hours
of debate in the House of Commons, we should be debating the concept of
extending the public schools act to include the first university degree. There
should be free tuition for the first university degree. That would be worthy of
debate in the House instead of a token gesture to memorialize Sir Wilfrid
Laurier by a memorial day.
Another of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's achievements we should
make note of is immigration, building the west. The member who spoke previously
mentioned Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in government from 1896 to 1911, 15 years
uninterrupted.
(1400)
During that period of time Manitoba grew about by 300%.
In my home province of Manitoba there were waves of immigration. It took real
foresight and real vision to open our borders and invite the world to come and
help us build a great nation. That took real, inspired vision. I recognize that
and I have a great deal of respect for it.
As I am outlining these things, more come to mind.
There is another irony associated with this in that one of the greatest
achievements of Sir John A. Macdonald was building the national railway. The
single greatest achievement of that century, perhaps, in terms of building this
nation was our national railway, the great dream. Here we have members of the
Liberal government opposite proposing to honour Sir John A. Macdonald, the
architect of that dream, when they themselves are again taking active steps to
dismantle the national dream of a continuous rail line from east to west. For
years we have been criticizing the dismantling of our rail system. For all the
environmental reasons and economic reasons we should be encouraging rail
transportation in this country, accentuating it and adding to it, not tearing
up the tracks.
We cannot help but comment on the irony associated with
that. The Liberals seek to honour the memory of Sir John A. Macdonald with a
memorial day when the very things that Sir John A. Macdonald dedicated his life
to building in this country they themselves are dismantling piece by
piece.
I cannot support the bill. I know it is a private
member's bill and so my party members will be voting their own conscience. I am
not speaking for my caucus, but I myself support the remarks from the member
for Laval Centre, that we do not think it is appropriate to start dedicating
memorial days to the memory of prime ministers, no matter how great their
contribution to building this country. I will not be supporting Bill
S-14.
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased on behalf of the
coalition, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, to rise in support
of this initiative, private member's bill, Bill S-14, which I think is
significant as well as timely and is one that I almost feel very humbled by
when speaking of these two individuals in the political context.
Mr. Speaker, as you would know, this bill came from the
other place. I want to congratulate and commend the hon. senators, particularly
John Lynch-Staunton of the other place for bringing this matter forward, as
well as the hon. member for Don Valley West for his sponsorship here in the
House of Commons.
It is a worthwhile initiative. In the spirit that it
encompasses these two great men it has a bipartisan element to it and it
honours two men who played a huge, fundamental role in founding our country.
How fitting, how national, how correct and how positively politically correct
that we should bring forward a bill in the names of Laurier and Macdonald, and
how necessary at a time when our nation is casting its eyes inward and looking
for symbols of identity and the symbols with which we define ourselves in
troubled times.
My colleagues and I are extremely supportive and we are
extremely pleased to see that the bill has made it to this point.
We already know that Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir
Wilfrid Laurier have very much galvanized their place in history, their figures
cast in bronze around these historic buildings. Yet I feel that this initiative
would very much allow us to set aside two days of recognition, two days on
which all Canadians could pause and reflect upon the contributions of these men
in a truly Canadian way. This is an important recognition of men who displayed
great vision, political passion and perseverance at a time when our nation was
in its infancy.
[Translation]
At a time when some people suspect that Canadians have
become isolated and have turned away from their history, I believe this bill
may help Canadians to rediscover the origins of this great country, as well as
the two men who helped to shape Canada into the country we know today.
(1405)
[English]
Through Bill S-14 we are not honouring a Tory or a
Liberal. This is not about partisanship, which so often takes precedence in
this place. We are simply honouring two great Canadians who represent the two
dominant languages, cultures and religions of their day. One was a founding
father and the other was an equal contributor as the first francophone to lead
the country.
Bill S-14 does not call for a national holiday, only to
recognize their two birthdays.
The Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the member but
other members are reporting to the Chair that the translation is not being
received. Is it now being received?
Some hon. members: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter MacKay:
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Bloc member does not
understand French from Nova Scotia. I am sorry, but I tried.
[English]
As I was saying, Bill S-14 does not just set aside time
for a national holiday. This is not about expanding time off for schools or
businesses. This is very much about recognizing in a formal way the birthdays
of two great Canadians, Sir John. A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the
birthdate being January 11 in the case of Sir John A. Macdonald.
As an interesting footnote, the birth records of Sir
John A. Macdonald, who was born in Scotland, indicate that he was born on
January 10. When he and his family emigrated to Canada his father, Hugh,
recorded his birthdate as January 11, so there was some dispute. On the other
hand, I suppose the record keepers are more precise in the province of Quebec
and they indicate quite clearly that November 20 was the day on which Sir
Wilfrid Laurier came into the world naked and screaming and, from that point
on, went on to become one the country's leading francophone
politicians.
This bill to honour Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir
Wilfrid Laurier arguably sets aside time to reflect on two of Canada's most
important politicians and certainly prime ministers. Sir John A. Macdonald was
obviously the prime minister during Confederation. In 1867 he led the country
into a new federal state. Though he was defeated in 1873, he was re-elected
four times subsequent to that: in 1878, 1882, 1887 and again in 1891. He was
elected five times as prime minister of the country. He died in office in June
1891. More than any single individual in our entire country's history, we have
to give him credit for bringing this great nation together. His efforts and
leadership created the country, gave birth to a nation. One cannot emphasize
enough the magnitude and the majesty of that accomplishment.
What accomplishment can compare in any way to
what Sir John A. really did? It was a tremendous act of will to bring together
this vast, diverse and enormous land. He united the country not only through
his political efforts but arguably he united the country physically, through
the construction of the railway, and philosophically, by having like-minded
people pull in the same direction. Through his long range vision, foresight,
perseverance and certainly unquestionable inner fortitude, Sir John A. is very
worthy of the bill that is before us.
His professional life included his time as a
lawyer and a businessman. He worked in a bank and entered politics as an
alderman for Kingston, Ontario. He died, as I mentioned, on June 6, 1891, while
still in office and is buried in the Cataraqui cemetery near Kingston,
Ontario.
His party, quite apropos and relevant in
today's political environment, was one of the liberal Conservatives. One can
imagine how incongruous. In the current context, it was a coalition that he
led. He was the party leader from 1867 to 1891 and was able to bring together
like-minded Conservatives with a social conscience.
He represented the constituencies of Kingston
and Victoria, British Columbia. Many Canadians are probably not aware that Sir
John A. represented the constituency of Victoria from 1878 to 1882 and then
returned to Ontario between 1882 and 1887 to represent Carleton, Ontario. His
ministries included receiver general, militia affairs, justice, attorney
general for Canada, minister of the interior, superintendent general of Indian
affairs, railways and canals. He obviously had a diverse interest that he
brought to public life.
I want to touch for a moment on Sir Wilfrid
Laurier and his accomplishments. He was the seventh prime minister of the
country serving from 1896 to 1911. He was the first elected French Canadian
prime minister. He drafted John Abbott, who became the first prime minister
from Quebec, into the job. When he left after one year, Mr. Laurier, who was
seen by many as a young radical, and by some standards today may have been
called a separatist, came into an age of wisdom and became the first elected
prime minister from Quebec.
(1410)
He was key to promoting national unity from
that moment onward, and like Sir John A., came from a professional life of the
practice of law. He was called to the bar in eastern Canada in 1864. He was the
editor of a paper and an ensign in the Arthabaskaville Infantry. He served as
an MLA in the provincial legislature of Quebec. He died in February of 1919 in
Ottawa and was buried at the Notre Dame Cemetery.
His political record, like Sir John A.'s, is
stellar and is one that displays an incredible ability and degree of
leadership. Although Macdonald was a Conservative and Laurier a Liberal and
they were opponents in and out of the House, they had a common belief in a
strong and united country where everyone, regardless of religion, race or
language lived and worked for the benefit of one nation.
Throughout our remarks we have avoided the
degree of partisanship that sometimes slips in. It is an effort for us to ban
together to present a bill that would benefit Canadians in the sense that they
could recognize, in an official way, the history and the cohesiveness that
these two men represent to us. I encourage all members to support this
important initiative.
(1415)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker:
It being 2.15 p.m., the time provided for this debate
has now expired.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have
it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read
the second time and referred to a committee)
The Deputy Speaker:
It being 2.16 p.m., the House stands adjourned until
Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 2.16 p.m.)
APPENDIX
Alphabetical List of Members with their
Constituencies, Province of Constituency
and Political Affiliations;
Committees of the House,
the Ministry and Parliamentary Secretary
Chair Occupants
Speaker
Hon. Peter Milliken
The Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the
Whole
Mr. Bob Kilger
Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole
Mr. Réginald Bélair
Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole
House
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos
Board Of Internal Economy
Hon. Peter Milliken
Hon. Don Boudria
Hon. Andy Mitchell
Mr. Bill Blaikie
Ms. Marlene Catterall
Mr. Bob Kilger
Mr. Peter MacKay
Mr. Jacques Saada
Mr. John Reynolds
Mr. Pierre Brien
Mr. Richard Harris
Alphabetical list of Members of the House of Commons
First Session--Thirty Seventh Parliament
Name of Member |
Constituency |
Province of Constituency |
Political Affiliation |
Abbott, Jim |
Kootenay--Columbia |
British Columbia |
CA |
Ablonczy, Diane |
Calgary--Nose Hill |
Alberta |
CA |
Adams, Peter |
Peterborough |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Alcock, Reg |
Winnipeg South |
Manitoba |
Lib. |
Allard, Carole-Marie |
Laval East |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Anders, Rob |
Calgary West |
Alberta |
CA |
Anderson, David, Minister of the Environment |
Victoria |
British Columbia |
Lib. |
Anderson, David |
Cypress Hills--Grasslands |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Assad, Mark, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration |
Gatineau |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Assadourian, Sarkis |
Brampton Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Asselin, Gérard |
Charlevoix |
Quebec |
BQ |
Augustine, Jean |
Etobicoke--Lakeshore |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bachand, André |
Richmond--Arthabaska |
Quebec |
PC/DR |
Bachand, Claude |
Saint-Jean |
Quebec |
BQ |
Bagnell, Larry |
Yukon |
Yukon |
Lib. |
Bailey, Roy |
Souris--Moose Mountain |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Baker, George |
Gander--Grand Falls |
Newfoundland |
Lib. |
Bakopanos, Eleni |
Ahuntsic |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Barnes, Sue |
London West |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Beaumier, Colleen |
Brampton West--Mississauga |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bélair, Réginald |
Timmins--James Bay |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bélanger, Mauril |
Ottawa--Vanier |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bellehumeur, Michel |
Berthier--Montcalm |
Quebec |
BQ |
Bellemare, Eugène |
Ottawa--Orléans |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bennett, Carolyn |
St. Paul's |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Benoit, Leon |
Lakeland |
Alberta |
CA |
Bergeron, Stéphane |
Verchères--Les-Patriotes |
Quebec |
BQ |
Bertrand, Robert |
Pontiac--Gatineau--Labelle |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Bevilacqua, Maurizio |
Vaughan--King--Aurora |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bigras, Bernard |
Rosemont--Petite-Patrie |
Quebec |
BQ |
Binet, Gérard |
Frontenac--Mégantic |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Blaikie, Bill |
Winnipeg--Transcona |
Manitoba |
NDP |
Blondin-Andrew, Ethel, Secretary of State (Children and
Youth) |
Western Arctic |
Northwest Territories |
Lib. |
Bonin, Ray |
Nickel Belt |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bonwick, Paul |
Simcoe--Grey |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Borotsik, Rick |
Brandon--Souris |
Manitoba |
PC/DR |
Boudria, Don, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in
the House of Commons |
Glengarry--Prescott--Russell |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bourgeois, Diane |
Terrebonne--Blainville |
Quebec |
BQ |
Bradshaw, Claudette, Minister of Labour |
Moncton--Riverview--Dieppe |
New Brunswick |
Lib. |
Breitkreuz, Garry |
Yorkton--Melville |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Brien, Pierre |
Témiscamingue |
Quebec |
BQ |
Brison, Scott |
Kings--Hants |
Nova Scotia |
PC/DR |
Brown, Bonnie |
Oakville |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bryden, John |
Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bulte, Sarmite, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage |
Parkdale--High Park |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Burton, Andy |
Skeena |
British Columbia |
CA |
Byrne, Gerry |
Humber--St. Barbe--Baie Verte |
Newfoundland |
Lib. |
Caccia, Charles |
Davenport |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Cadman, Chuck |
Surrey North |
British Columbia |
CA |
Calder, Murray |
Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Cannis, John |
Scarborough Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Caplan, Elinor, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration |
Thornhill |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Cardin, Serge |
Sherbrooke |
Quebec |
BQ |
Carignan, Jean-Guy |
Québec East |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Carroll, Aileen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs |
Barrie--Simcoe--Bradford |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Casey, Bill |
Cumberland--Colchester |
Nova Scotia |
PC/DR |
Casson, Rick |
Lethbridge |
Alberta |
CA |
Castonguay, Jeannot, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health |
Madawaska--Restigouche |
New Brunswick |
Lib. |
Catterall, Marlene |
Ottawa West--Nepean |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Cauchon, Martin, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of
State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) |
Outremont |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Chamberlain, Brenda |
Guelph--Wellington |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Charbonneau, Yvon |
Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Chatters, David |
Athabasca |
Alberta |
CA |
Chrétien, Jean, Prime Minister of Canada |
Saint-Maurice |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Clark, Joe |
Calgary Centre |
Alberta |
PC/DR |
Coderre, Denis, Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) |
Bourassa |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Collenette, David, Minister of Transport |
Don Valley East |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Comartin, Joe |
Windsor--St. Clair |
Ontario |
NDP |
Comuzzi, Joe |
Thunder Bay--Superior North |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Copps, Sheila, Minister of Canadian Heritage |
Hamilton East |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Cotler, Irwin |
Mount Royal |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Crête, Paul |
Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les
Basques |
Quebec |
BQ |
Cullen, Roy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance |
Markham |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Cummins, John |
Delta--South Richmond |
British Columbia |
CA |
Cuzner, Rodger |
Bras d'Or--Cape Breton |
Nova Scotia |
Lib. |
Dalphond-Guiral, Madeleine |
Laval Centre |
Quebec |
BQ |
Davies, Libby |
Vancouver East |
British Columbia |
NDP |
Day, Stockwell, Leader of the Opposition |
Okanagan--Coquihalla |
British Columbia |
CA |
Desjarlais, Bev |
Churchill |
Manitoba |
NDP |
Desrochers, Odina |
Lotbinière-L'Érable |
Quebec |
BQ |
DeVillers, Paul |
Simcoe North |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Dhaliwal, Herb, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans |
Vancouver South--Burnaby |
British Columbia |
Lib. |
Dion, Stéphane, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada
and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs |
Saint-Laurent--Cartierville |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Discepola, Nick |
Vaudreuil--Soulanges |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Doyle, Norman |
St. John's East |
Newfoundland |
PC/DR |
Dromisky, Stan |
Thunder Bay--Atikokan |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Drouin, Claude, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Industry |
Beauce |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Dubé, Antoine |
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière |
Quebec |
BQ |
Duceppe, Gilles |
Laurier--Sainte-Marie |
Quebec |
BQ |
Duhamel, Ronald, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of
State (Western Economic Diversification) (Francophonie) |
Saint Boniface |
Manitoba |
Lib. |
Duncan, John |
Vancouver Island North |
British Columbia |
CA |
Duplain, Claude |
Portneuf |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Easter, Wayne |
Malpeque |
Prince Edward Island |
Lib. |
Eggleton, Art, Minister of National Defence |
York Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Elley, Reed |
Nanaimo--Cowichan |
British Columbia |
CA |
Epp, Ken |
Elk Island |
Alberta |
CA |
Eyking, Mark |
Sydney--Victoria |
Nova Scotia |
Lib. |
Farrah, Georges, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans |
Bonaventure--Gaspé--Îles-de-la-Madeleine--Pabok |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Finlay, John, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Nothern Development |
Oxford |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Fitzpatrick, Brian |
Prince Albert |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Folco, Raymonde, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human
Resources Development |
Laval West |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Fontana, Joe |
London North Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Forseth, Paul |
New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby |
British Columbia |
CA |
Fournier, Ghislain |
Manicouagan |
Quebec |
BQ |
Fry, Hedy, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of
Women) |
Vancouver Centre |
British Columbia |
Lib. |
Gagliano, Alfonso, Minister of Public Works and Government
Services |
Saint-Léonard--Saint-Michel |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Gagnon, Christiane |
Québec |
Quebec |
BQ |
Gagnon, Marcel |
Champlain |
Quebec |
BQ |
Gallant, Cheryl |
Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke |
Ontario |
CA |
Gallaway, Roger |
Sarnia--Lambton |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Gauthier, Michel |
Roberval |
Quebec |
BQ |
Girard-Bujold, Jocelyne |
Jonquière |
Quebec |
BQ |
Godfrey, John |
Don Valley West |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Godin, Yvon |
Acadie--Bathurst |
New Brunswick |
NDP |
Goldring, Peter |
Edmonton Centre-East |
Alberta |
CA |
Goodale, Ralph, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board |
Wascana |
Saskatchewan |
Lib. |
Gouk, Jim |
Kootenay--Boundary--Okanagan |
British Columbia |
CA |
Graham, Bill |
Toronto Centre--Rosedale |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Gray, Herb, Deputy Prime Minister |
Windsor West |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Grewal, Gurmant |
Surrey Central |
British Columbia |
CA |
Grey, Deborah |
Edmonton North |
Alberta |
PC/DR |
Grose, Ivan |
Oshawa |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Guarnieri, Albina |
Mississauga East |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Guay, Monique |
Laurentides |
Quebec |
BQ |
Guimond, Michel |
Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans |
Quebec |
BQ |
Hanger, Art |
Calgary Northeast |
Alberta |
CA |
Harb, Mac |
Ottawa Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Harris, Richard |
Prince George--Bulkley Valley |
British Columbia |
CA |
Harvard, John |
Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia |
Manitoba |
Lib. |
Harvey, André, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport |
Chicoutimi--Le Fjord |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Hearn, Loyola |
St. John's West |
Newfoundland |
PC/DR |
Herron, John |
Fundy--Royal |
New Brunswick |
PC/DR |
Hill, Grant |
Macleod |
Alberta |
CA |
Hill, Jay |
Prince George--Peace River |
British Columbia |
PC/DR |
Hilstrom, Howard |
Selkirk--Interlake |
Manitoba |
CA |
Hinton, Betty |
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys |
British Columbia |
CA |
Hubbard, Charles |
Miramichi |
New Brunswick |
Lib. |
Ianno, Tony |
Trinity--Spadina |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Jackson, Ovid |
Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Jaffer, Rahim |
Edmonton--Strathcona |
Alberta |
CA |
Jennings, Marlene, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
International Cooperation |
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Johnston, Dale |
Wetaskiwin |
Alberta |
CA |
Jordan, Joe, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister |
Leeds--Grenville |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Karetak-Lindell, Nancy |
Nunavut |
Nunavut |
Lib. |
Karygiannis, Jim |
Scarborough--Agincourt |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Keddy, Gerald |
South Shore |
Nova Scotia |
PC/DR |
Kenney, Jason |
Calgary Southeast |
Alberta |
CA |
Keyes, Stan |
Hamilton West |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Kilger, Bob |
Stormont--Dundas--Charlottenburgh |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Kilgour, David, Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa) |
Edmonton Southeast |
Alberta |
Lib. |
Knutson, Gar |
Elgin--Middlesex--London |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Kraft Sloan, Karen |
York North |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Laframboise, Mario |
Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel |
Quebec |
BQ |
Laliberte, Rick |
Churchill River |
Saskatchewan |
Lib. |
Lalonde, Francine |
Mercier |
Quebec |
BQ |
Lanctôt, Robert |
Châteauguay |
Quebec |
BQ |
Lastewka, Walt |
St. Catharines |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Lavigne, Raymond |
Verdun--Saint-Henri--Saint-Paul--Pointe
Saint-Charles |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Lebel, Ghislain |
Chambly |
Quebec |
BQ |
LeBlanc, Dominic |
Beauséjour--Petitcodiac |
New Brunswick |
Lib. |
Lee, Derek |
Scarborough--Rouge River |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Leung, Sophia, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Revenue |
Vancouver Kingsway |
British Columbia |
Lib. |
Lill, Wendy |
Dartmouth |
Nova Scotia |
NDP |
Lincoln, Clifford |
Lac-Saint-Louis |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Longfield, Judi |
Whitby--Ajax |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Loubier, Yvan |
Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot |
Quebec |
BQ |
Lunn, Gary |
Saanich--Gulf Islands |
British Columbia |
PC/DR |
Lunney, James |
Nanaimo--Alberni |
British Columbia |
CA |
MacAulay, Lawrence, Solicitor General of Canada |
Cardigan |
Prince Edward Island |
Lib. |
MacKay, Peter |
Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough |
Nova Scotia |
PC/DR |
Macklin, Paul Harold |
Northumberland |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Mahoney, Steve |
Mississauga West |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Malhi, Gurbax, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Labour |
Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Maloney, John |
Erie--Lincoln |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Manning, Preston |
Calgary Southwest |
Alberta |
CA |
Marceau, Richard |
Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier |
Quebec |
BQ |
Marcil, Serge |
Beauharnois--Salaberry |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Mark, Inky |
Dauphin--Swan River |
Manitoba |
PC/DR |
Marleau, Diane |
Sudbury |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Martin, Keith |
Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca |
British Columbia |
CA |
Martin, Pat |
Winnipeg Centre |
Manitoba |
NDP |
Martin, Paul, Minister of Finance |
LaSalle--Émard |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Matthews, Bill, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs |
Burin--St. George's |
Newfoundland |
Lib. |
Mayfield, Philip |
Cariboo--Chilcotin |
British Columbia |
CA |
McCallum, John, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance |
Markham |
Ontario |
Lib. |
McCormick, Larry, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food |
Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington |
Ontario |
Lib. |
McDonough, Alexa |
Halifax |
Nova Scotia |
NDP |
McGuire, Joe |
Egmont |
Prince Edward Island |
Lib. |
McKay, John |
Scarborough East |
Ontario |
Lib. |
McLellan, Anne, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada |
Edmonton West |
Alberta |
Lib. |
McNally, Grant |
Dewdney--Alouette |
British Columbia |
PC/DR |
McTeague, Dan |
Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Ménard, Réal |
Hochelaga--Maisonneuve |
Quebec |
BQ |
Meredith, Val |
South Surrey--White Rock--Langley |
British Columbia |
PC/DR |
Merrifield, Rob |
Yellowhead |
Alberta |
CA |
Milliken, Peter |
Kingston and the Islands |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Mills, Bob |
Red Deer |
Alberta |
CA |
Mills, Dennis |
Toronto--Danforth |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Minna, Maria, Minister for International Cooperation |
Beaches--East York |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Mitchell, Andy, Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal
Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario) |
Parry Sound--Muskoka |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Moore, James |
Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam |
British Columbia |
CA |
Murphy, Shawn |
Hillsborough |
Prince Edward Island |
Lib. |
Myers, Lynn, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of
Canada |
Waterloo--Wellington |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Nault, Robert, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development |
Kenora--Rainy River |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Neville, Anita |
Winnipeg South Centre |
Manitoba |
Lib. |
Normand, Gilbert, Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development) |
Bellechasse--Etchemins--Montmagny--L'Islet |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Nystrom, Lorne |
Regina--Qu'Appelle |
Saskatchewan |
NDP |
O'Brien, Lawrence |
Labrador |
Newfoundland |
Lib. |
O'Brien, Pat, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
International Trade |
London--Fanshawe |
Ontario |
Lib. |
O'Reilly, John, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Defence |
Haliburton--Victoria--Brock |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Obhrai, Deepak |
Calgary East |
Alberta |
CA |
Owen, Stephen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada |
Vancouver Quadra |
British Columbia |
Lib. |
Pagtakhan, Rey, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific) |
Winnipeg North--St. Paul |
Manitoba |
Lib. |
Pallister, Brian |
Portage--Lisgar |
Manitoba |
CA |
Pankiw, Jim |
Saskatoon--Humboldt |
Saskatchewan |
PC/DR |
Paquette, Pierre |
Joliette |
Quebec |
BQ |
Paradis, Denis |
Brome--Missisquoi |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Parrish, Carolyn |
Mississauga Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Patry, Bernard |
Pierrefonds--Dollard |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Penson, Charlie |
Peace River |
Alberta |
CA |
Peric, Janko |
Cambridge |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Perron, Gilles-A. |
Rivière-des-Mille-Îles |
Quebec |
BQ |
Peschisolido, Joe |
Richmond |
British Columbia |
CA |
Peterson, Jim, Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions) |
Willowdale |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Pettigrew, Pierre, Minister for International Trade |
Papineau--Saint-Denis |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Phinney, Beth |
Hamilton Mountain |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Picard, Pauline |
Drummond |
Quebec |
BQ |
Pickard, Jerry |
Chatham--Kent Essex |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Pillitteri, Gary |
Niagara Falls |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Plamondon, Louis |
Bas-Richelieu--Nicolet--Bécancour |
Quebec |
BQ |
Pratt, David |
Nepean--Carleton |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Price, David |
Compton--Stanstead |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Proctor, Dick |
Palliser |
Saskatchewan |
NDP |
Proulx, Marcel |
Hull--Aylmer |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Provenzano, Carmen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Veterans Affairs |
Sault Ste. Marie |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Rajotte, James |
Edmonton Southwest |
Alberta |
CA |
Redman, Karen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment |
Kitchener Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Reed, Julian |
Halton |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Regan, Geoff, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons |
Halifax West |
Nova Scotia |
Lib. |
Reid, Scott |
Lanark--Carleton |
Ontario |
CA |
Reynolds, John |
West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast |
British Columbia |
CA |
Richardson, John |
Perth--Middlesex |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Ritz, Gerry |
Battlefords--Lloydminster |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Robillard, Lucienne, President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure |
Westmount--Ville-Marie |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Robinson, Svend |
Burnaby--Douglas |
British Columbia |
NDP |
Rocheleau, Yves |
Trois-Rivières |
Quebec |
BQ |
Rock, Allan, Minister of Health |
Etobicoke Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Roy, Jean-Yves |
Matapédia--Matane |
Quebec |
BQ |
Saada, Jacques |
Brossard--La Prairie |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Sauvageau, Benoît |
Repentigny |
Quebec |
BQ |
Savoy, Andy |
Tobique--Mactaquac |
New Brunswick |
Lib. |
Scherrer, Hélène |
Louis-Hébert |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Schmidt, Werner |
Kelowna |
British Columbia |
CA |
Scott, Andy |
Fredericton |
New Brunswick |
Lib. |
Serré, Benoît, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural
Resources |
Timiskaming--Cochrane |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Sgro, Judy |
York West |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Shepherd, Alex, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the
Treasury Board |
Durham |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Skelton, Carol |
Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Solberg, Monte |
Medicine Hat |
Alberta |
CA |
Sorenson, Kevin |
Crowfoot |
Alberta |
CA |
Speller, Bob |
Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Spencer, Larry |
Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
St-Hilaire, Caroline |
Longueuil |
Quebec |
BQ |
St-Jacques, Diane |
Shefford |
Quebec |
Lib. |
St-Julien, Guy |
Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik |
Quebec |
Lib. |
St. Denis, Brent |
Algoma--Manitoulin |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Steckle, Paul |
Huron--Bruce |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Stewart, Jane, Minister of Human Resources Development |
Brant |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Stinson, Darrel |
Okanagan--Shuswap |
British Columbia |
CA |
Stoffer, Peter |
Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern
Shore |
Nova Scotia |
NDP |
Strahl, Chuck |
Fraser Valley |
British Columbia |
PC/DR |
Szabo, Paul, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public
Works and Government Services |
Mississauga South |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Telegdi, Andrew |
Kitchener--Waterloo |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Thibault, Robert, Minister of State (Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency) |
West Nova |
Nova Scotia |
Lib. |
Thibeault, Yolande |
Saint-Lambert |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Thompson, Greg |
New Brunswick Southwest |
New Brunswick |
PC/DR |
Thompson, Myron |
Wild Rose |
Alberta |
CA |
Tirabassi, Tony |
Niagara Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Tobin, Brian, Minister of Industry |
Bonavista--Trinity--Conception |
Newfoundland |
Lib. |
Toews, Vic |
Provencher |
Manitoba |
CA |
Tonks, Alan |
York South--Weston |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Torsney, Paddy |
Burlington |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Tremblay, Stéphan |
Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay |
Quebec |
BQ |
Tremblay, Suzanne |
Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis |
Quebec |
BQ |
Ur, Rose-Marie |
Lambton--Kent--Middlesex |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Valeri, Tony |
Stoney Creek |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Vanclief, Lyle, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food |
Prince Edward--Hastings |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Vellacott, Maurice |
Saskatoon--Wanuskewin |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Venne, Pierrette |
Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert |
Quebec |
BQ |
Volpe, Joseph |
Eglinton--Lawrence |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Wappel, Tom |
Scarborough Southwest |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Wasylycia-Leis, Judy |
Winnipeg North Centre |
Manitoba |
NDP |
Wayne, Elsie |
Saint John |
New Brunswick |
PC/DR |
Whelan, Susan |
Essex |
Ontario |
Lib. |
White, Randy |
Langley--Abbotsford |
British Columbia |
CA |
White, Ted |
North Vancouver |
British Columbia |
CA |
Wilfert, Bryon |
Oak Ridges |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Williams, John |
St. Albert |
Alberta |
CA |
Wood, Bob |
Nipissing |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Yelich, Lynne |
Blackstrap |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Alphabetical list of Members of the House of Commons by
Province
First Session--Thirty Seventh Parliament
Name of Member |
Constituency |
Political Affiliation |
Alberta (26)
|
Ablonczy, Diane |
Calgary--Nose Hill |
CA |
Anders, Rob |
Calgary West |
CA |
Benoit, Leon |
Lakeland |
CA |
Casson, Rick |
Lethbridge |
CA |
Chatters, David |
Athabasca |
CA |
Clark, Joe |
Calgary Centre |
PC/DR |
Epp, Ken |
Elk Island |
CA |
Goldring, Peter |
Edmonton Centre-East |
CA |
Grey, Deborah |
Edmonton North |
PC/DR |
Hanger, Art |
Calgary Northeast |
CA |
Hill, Grant |
Macleod |
CA |
Jaffer, Rahim |
Edmonton--Strathcona |
CA |
Johnston, Dale |
Wetaskiwin |
CA |
Kenney, Jason |
Calgary Southeast |
CA |
Kilgour, David, Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa) |
Edmonton Southeast |
Lib. |
Manning, Preston |
Calgary Southwest |
CA |
McLellan, Anne, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada |
Edmonton West |
Lib. |
Merrifield, Rob |
Yellowhead |
CA |
Mills, Bob |
Red Deer |
CA |
Obhrai, Deepak |
Calgary East |
CA |
Penson, Charlie |
Peace River |
CA |
Rajotte, James |
Edmonton Southwest |
CA |
Solberg, Monte |
Medicine Hat |
CA |
Sorenson, Kevin |
Crowfoot |
CA |
Thompson, Myron |
Wild Rose |
CA |
Williams, John |
St. Albert |
CA |
British Columbia (34)
|
Abbott, Jim |
Kootenay--Columbia |
CA |
Anderson, David, Minister of the Environment |
Victoria |
Lib. |
Burton, Andy |
Skeena |
CA |
Cadman, Chuck |
Surrey North |
CA |
Cummins, John |
Delta--South Richmond |
CA |
Davies, Libby |
Vancouver East |
NDP |
Day, Stockwell, Leader of the Opposition |
Okanagan--Coquihalla |
CA |
Dhaliwal, Herb, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans |
Vancouver South--Burnaby |
Lib. |
Duncan, John |
Vancouver Island North |
CA |
Elley, Reed |
Nanaimo--Cowichan |
CA |
Forseth, Paul |
New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby |
CA |
Fry, Hedy, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of
Women) |
Vancouver Centre |
Lib. |
Gouk, Jim |
Kootenay--Boundary--Okanagan |
CA |
Grewal, Gurmant |
Surrey Central |
CA |
Harris, Richard |
Prince George--Bulkley Valley |
CA |
Hill, Jay |
Prince George--Peace River |
PC/DR |
Hinton, Betty |
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys |
CA |
Leung, Sophia, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Revenue |
Vancouver Kingsway |
Lib. |
Lunn, Gary |
Saanich--Gulf Islands |
PC/DR |
Lunney, James |
Nanaimo--Alberni |
CA |
Martin, Keith |
Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca |
CA |
Mayfield, Philip |
Cariboo--Chilcotin |
CA |
McNally, Grant |
Dewdney--Alouette |
PC/DR |
Meredith, Val |
South Surrey--White Rock--Langley |
PC/DR |
Moore, James |
Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam |
CA |
Owen, Stephen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada |
Vancouver Quadra |
Lib. |
Peschisolido, Joe |
Richmond |
CA |
Reynolds, John |
West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast |
CA |
Robinson, Svend |
Burnaby--Douglas |
NDP |
Schmidt, Werner |
Kelowna |
CA |
Stinson, Darrel |
Okanagan--Shuswap |
CA |
Strahl, Chuck |
Fraser Valley |
PC/DR |
White, Randy |
Langley--Abbotsford |
CA |
White, Ted |
North Vancouver |
CA |
Manitoba (14)
|
Alcock, Reg |
Winnipeg South |
Lib. |
Blaikie, Bill |
Winnipeg--Transcona |
NDP |
Borotsik, Rick |
Brandon--Souris |
PC/DR |
Desjarlais, Bev |
Churchill |
NDP |
Duhamel, Ronald, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of
State (Western Economic Diversification) (Francophonie) |
Saint Boniface |
Lib. |
Harvard, John |
Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia |
Lib. |
Hilstrom, Howard |
Selkirk--Interlake |
CA |
Mark, Inky |
Dauphin--Swan River |
PC/DR |
Martin, Pat |
Winnipeg Centre |
NDP |
Neville, Anita |
Winnipeg South Centre |
Lib. |
Pagtakhan, Rey, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific) |
Winnipeg North--St. Paul |
Lib. |
Pallister, Brian |
Portage--Lisgar |
CA |
Toews, Vic |
Provencher |
CA |
Wasylycia-Leis, Judy |
Winnipeg North Centre |
NDP |
New Brunswick (10)
|
Bradshaw, Claudette, Minister of Labour |
Moncton--Riverview--Dieppe |
Lib. |
Castonguay, Jeannot, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health |
Madawaska--Restigouche |
Lib. |
Godin, Yvon |
Acadie--Bathurst |
NDP |
Herron, John |
Fundy--Royal |
PC/DR |
Hubbard, Charles |
Miramichi |
Lib. |
LeBlanc, Dominic |
Beauséjour--Petitcodiac |
Lib. |
Savoy, Andy |
Tobique--Mactaquac |
Lib. |
Scott, Andy |
Fredericton |
Lib. |
Thompson, Greg |
New Brunswick Southwest |
PC/DR |
Wayne, Elsie |
Saint John |
PC/DR |
Newfoundland (7)
|
Baker, George |
Gander--Grand Falls |
Lib. |
Byrne, Gerry |
Humber--St. Barbe--Baie Verte |
Lib. |
Doyle, Norman |
St. John's East |
PC/DR |
Hearn, Loyola |
St. John's West |
PC/DR |
Matthews, Bill, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs |
Burin--St. George's |
Lib. |
O'Brien, Lawrence |
Labrador |
Lib. |
Tobin, Brian, Minister of Industry |
Bonavista--Trinity--Conception |
Lib. |
Northwest Territories (1)
|
Blondin-Andrew, Ethel, Secretary of State (Children and
Youth) |
Western Arctic |
Lib. |
Nova Scotia (11)
|
Brison, Scott |
Kings--Hants |
PC/DR |
Casey, Bill |
Cumberland--Colchester |
PC/DR |
Cuzner, Rodger |
Bras d'Or--Cape Breton |
Lib. |
Eyking, Mark |
Sydney--Victoria |
Lib. |
Keddy, Gerald |
South Shore |
PC/DR |
Lill, Wendy |
Dartmouth |
NDP |
MacKay, Peter |
Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough |
PC/DR |
McDonough, Alexa |
Halifax |
NDP |
Regan, Geoff, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons |
Halifax West |
Lib. |
Stoffer, Peter |
Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern
Shore |
NDP |
Thibault, Robert, Minister of State (Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency) |
West Nova |
Lib. |
Nunavut (1)
|
Karetak-Lindell, Nancy |
Nunavut |
Lib. |
Ontario (103)
|
Adams, Peter |
Peterborough |
Lib. |
Assadourian, Sarkis |
Brampton Centre |
Lib. |
Augustine, Jean |
Etobicoke--Lakeshore |
Lib. |
Barnes, Sue |
London West |
Lib. |
Beaumier, Colleen |
Brampton West--Mississauga |
Lib. |
Bélair, Réginald |
Timmins--James Bay |
Lib. |
Bélanger, Mauril |
Ottawa--Vanier |
Lib. |
Bellemare, Eugène |
Ottawa--Orléans |
Lib. |
Bennett, Carolyn |
St. Paul's |
Lib. |
Bevilacqua, Maurizio |
Vaughan--King--Aurora |
Lib. |
Bonin, Ray |
Nickel Belt |
Lib. |
Bonwick, Paul |
Simcoe--Grey |
Lib. |
Boudria, Don, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in
the House of Commons |
Glengarry--Prescott--Russell |
Lib. |
Brown, Bonnie |
Oakville |
Lib. |
Bryden, John |
Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot |
Lib. |
Bulte, Sarmite, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage |
Parkdale--High Park |
Lib. |
Caccia, Charles |
Davenport |
Lib. |
Calder, Murray |
Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey |
Lib. |
Cannis, John |
Scarborough Centre |
Lib. |
Caplan, Elinor, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration |
Thornhill |
Lib. |
Carroll, Aileen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs |
Barrie--Simcoe--Bradford |
Lib. |
Catterall, Marlene |
Ottawa West--Nepean |
Lib. |
Chamberlain, Brenda |
Guelph--Wellington |
Lib. |
Collenette, David, Minister of Transport |
Don Valley East |
Lib. |
Comartin, Joe |
Windsor--St. Clair |
NDP |
Comuzzi, Joe |
Thunder Bay--Superior North |
Lib. |
Copps, Sheila, Minister of Canadian Heritage |
Hamilton East |
Lib. |
Cullen, Roy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance |
Markham |
Lib. |
DeVillers, Paul |
Simcoe North |
Lib. |
Dromisky, Stan |
Thunder Bay--Atikokan |
Lib. |
Eggleton, Art, Minister of National Defence |
York Centre |
Lib. |
Finlay, John, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Nothern Development |
Oxford |
Lib. |
Fontana, Joe |
London North Centre |
Lib. |
Gallant, Cheryl |
Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke |
CA |
Gallaway, Roger |
Sarnia--Lambton |
Lib. |
Godfrey, John |
Don Valley West |
Lib. |
Graham, Bill |
Toronto Centre--Rosedale |
Lib. |
Gray, Herb, Deputy Prime Minister |
Windsor West |
Lib. |
Grose, Ivan |
Oshawa |
Lib. |
Guarnieri, Albina |
Mississauga East |
Lib. |
Harb, Mac |
Ottawa Centre |
Lib. |
Ianno, Tony |
Trinity--Spadina |
Lib. |
Jackson, Ovid |
Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound |
Lib. |
Jordan, Joe, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime
Minister |
Leeds--Grenville |
Lib. |
Karygiannis, Jim |
Scarborough--Agincourt |
Lib. |
Keyes, Stan |
Hamilton West |
Lib. |
Kilger, Bob |
Stormont--Dundas--Charlottenburgh |
Lib. |
Knutson, Gar |
Elgin--Middlesex--London |
Lib. |
Kraft Sloan, Karen |
York North |
Lib. |
Lastewka, Walt |
St. Catharines |
Lib. |
Lee, Derek |
Scarborough--Rouge River |
Lib. |
Longfield, Judi |
Whitby--Ajax |
Lib. |
Macklin, Paul Harold |
Northumberland |
Lib. |
Mahoney, Steve |
Mississauga West |
Lib. |
Malhi, Gurbax, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Labour |
Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale |
Lib. |
Maloney, John |
Erie--Lincoln |
Lib. |
Marleau, Diane |
Sudbury |
Lib. |
McCallum, John, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance |
Markham |
Lib. |
McCormick, Larry, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food |
Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and
Addington |
Lib. |
McKay, John |
Scarborough East |
Lib. |
McTeague, Dan |
Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge |
Lib. |
Milliken, Peter |
Kingston and the Islands |
Lib. |
Mills, Dennis |
Toronto--Danforth |
Lib. |
Minna, Maria, Minister for International Cooperation |
Beaches--East York |
Lib. |
Mitchell, Andy, Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal
Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario) |
Parry Sound--Muskoka |
Lib. |
Myers, Lynn, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General
of Canada |
Waterloo--Wellington |
Lib. |
Nault, Robert, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development |
Kenora--Rainy River |
Lib. |
O'Brien, Pat, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
International Trade |
London--Fanshawe |
Lib. |
O'Reilly, John, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Defence |
Haliburton--Victoria--Brock |
Lib. |
Parrish, Carolyn |
Mississauga Centre |
Lib. |
Peric, Janko |
Cambridge |
Lib. |
Peterson, Jim, Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions) |
Willowdale |
Lib. |
Phinney, Beth |
Hamilton Mountain |
Lib. |
Pickard, Jerry |
Chatham--Kent Essex |
Lib. |
Pillitteri, Gary |
Niagara Falls |
Lib. |
Pratt, David |
Nepean--Carleton |
Lib. |
Provenzano, Carmen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Veterans Affairs |
Sault Ste. Marie |
Lib. |
Redman, Karen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment |
Kitchener Centre |
Lib. |
Reed, Julian |
Halton |
Lib. |
Reid, Scott |
Lanark--Carleton |
CA |
Richardson, John |
Perth--Middlesex |
Lib. |
Rock, Allan, Minister of Health |
Etobicoke Centre |
Lib. |
Serré, Benoît, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Natural Resources |
Timiskaming--Cochrane |
Lib. |
Sgro, Judy |
York West |
Lib. |
Shepherd, Alex, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the
Treasury Board |
Durham |
Lib. |
Speller, Bob |
Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant |
Lib. |
St. Denis, Brent |
Algoma--Manitoulin |
Lib. |
Steckle, Paul |
Huron--Bruce |
Lib. |
Stewart, Jane, Minister of Human Resources Development |
Brant |
Lib. |
Szabo, Paul, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public
Works and Government Services |
Mississauga South |
Lib. |
Telegdi, Andrew |
Kitchener--Waterloo |
Lib. |
Tirabassi, Tony |
Niagara Centre |
Lib. |
Tonks, Alan |
York South--Weston |
Lib. |
Torsney, Paddy |
Burlington |
Lib. |
Ur, Rose-Marie |
Lambton--Kent--Middlesex |
Lib. |
Valeri, Tony |
Stoney Creek |
Lib. |
Vanclief, Lyle, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food |
Prince Edward--Hastings |
Lib. |
Volpe, Joseph |
Eglinton--Lawrence |
Lib. |
Wappel, Tom |
Scarborough Southwest |
Lib. |
Whelan, Susan |
Essex |
Lib. |
Wilfert, Bryon |
Oak Ridges |
Lib. |
Wood, Bob |
Nipissing |
Lib. |
Prince Edward Island (4)
|
Easter, Wayne |
Malpeque |
Lib. |
MacAulay, Lawrence, Solicitor General of Canada |
Cardigan |
Lib. |
McGuire, Joe |
Egmont |
Lib. |
Murphy, Shawn |
Hillsborough |
Lib. |
Quebec (75)
|
Allard, Carole-Marie |
Laval East |
Lib. |
Assad, Mark, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration |
Gatineau |
Lib. |
Asselin, Gérard |
Charlevoix |
BQ |
Bachand, André |
Richmond--Arthabaska |
PC/DR |
Bachand, Claude |
Saint-Jean |
BQ |
Bakopanos, Eleni |
Ahuntsic |
Lib. |
Bellehumeur, Michel |
Berthier--Montcalm |
BQ |
Bergeron, Stéphane |
Verchères--Les-Patriotes |
BQ |
Bertrand, Robert |
Pontiac--Gatineau--Labelle |
Lib. |
Bigras, Bernard |
Rosemont--Petite-Patrie |
BQ |
Binet, Gérard |
Frontenac--Mégantic |
Lib. |
Bourgeois, Diane |
Terrebonne--Blainville |
BQ |
Brien, Pierre |
Témiscamingue |
BQ |
Cardin, Serge |
Sherbrooke |
BQ |
Carignan, Jean-Guy |
Québec East |
Lib. |
Cauchon, Martin, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of
State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) |
Outremont |
Lib. |
Charbonneau, Yvon |
Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies |
Lib. |
Chrétien, Jean, Prime Minister of Canada |
Saint-Maurice |
Lib. |
Coderre, Denis, Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) |
Bourassa |
Lib. |
Cotler, Irwin |
Mount Royal |
Lib. |
Crête, Paul |
Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les
Basques |
BQ |
Dalphond-Guiral, Madeleine |
Laval Centre |
BQ |
Desrochers, Odina |
Lotbinière-L'Érable |
BQ |
Dion, Stéphane, President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs |
Saint-Laurent--Cartierville |
Lib. |
Discepola, Nick |
Vaudreuil--Soulanges |
Lib. |
Drouin, Claude, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Industry |
Beauce |
Lib. |
Dubé, Antoine |
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière |
BQ |
Duceppe, Gilles |
Laurier--Sainte-Marie |
BQ |
Duplain, Claude |
Portneuf |
Lib. |
Farrah, Georges, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans |
Bonaventure--Gaspé--Îles-de-la-Madeleine--Pabok |
Lib. |
Folco, Raymonde, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Human Resources Development |
Laval West |
Lib. |
Fournier, Ghislain |
Manicouagan |
BQ |
Gagliano, Alfonso, Minister of Public Works and Government
Services |
Saint-Léonard--Saint-Michel |
Lib. |
Gagnon, Christiane |
Québec |
BQ |
Gagnon, Marcel |
Champlain |
BQ |
Gauthier, Michel |
Roberval |
BQ |
Girard-Bujold, Jocelyne |
Jonquière |
BQ |
Guay, Monique |
Laurentides |
BQ |
Guimond, Michel |
Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans |
BQ |
Harvey, André, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport |
Chicoutimi--Le Fjord |
Lib. |
Jennings, Marlene, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
International Cooperation |
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine |
Lib. |
Laframboise, Mario |
Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel |
BQ |
Lalonde, Francine |
Mercier |
BQ |
Lanctôt, Robert |
Châteauguay |
BQ |
Lavigne, Raymond |
Verdun--Saint-Henri--Saint-Paul--Pointe
Saint-Charles |
Lib. |
Lebel, Ghislain |
Chambly |
BQ |
Lincoln, Clifford |
Lac-Saint-Louis |
Lib. |
Loubier, Yvan |
Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot |
BQ |
Marceau, Richard |
Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier |
BQ |
Marcil, Serge |
Beauharnois--Salaberry |
Lib. |
Martin, Paul, Minister of Finance |
LaSalle--Émard |
Lib. |
Ménard, Réal |
Hochelaga--Maisonneuve |
BQ |
Normand, Gilbert, Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development) |
Bellechasse--Etchemins--Montmagny--L'Islet |
Lib. |
Paquette, Pierre |
Joliette |
BQ |
Paradis, Denis |
Brome--Missisquoi |
Lib. |
Patry, Bernard |
Pierrefonds--Dollard |
Lib. |
Perron, Gilles-A. |
Rivière-des-Mille-Îles |
BQ |
Pettigrew, Pierre, Minister for International Trade |
Papineau--Saint-Denis |
Lib. |
Picard, Pauline |
Drummond |
BQ |
Plamondon, Louis |
Bas-Richelieu--Nicolet--Bécancour |
BQ |
Price, David |
Compton--Stanstead |
Lib. |
Proulx, Marcel |
Hull--Aylmer |
Lib. |
Robillard, Lucienne, President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure |
Westmount--Ville-Marie |
Lib. |
Rocheleau, Yves |
Trois-Rivières |
BQ |
Roy, Jean-Yves |
Matapédia--Matane |
BQ |
Saada, Jacques |
Brossard--La Prairie |
Lib. |
Sauvageau, Benoît |
Repentigny |
BQ |
Scherrer, Hélène |
Louis-Hébert |
Lib. |
St-Hilaire, Caroline |
Longueuil |
BQ |
St-Jacques, Diane |
Shefford |
Lib. |
St-Julien, Guy |
Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik |
Lib. |
Thibeault, Yolande |
Saint-Lambert |
Lib. |
Tremblay, Stéphan |
Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay |
BQ |
Tremblay, Suzanne |
Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis |
BQ |
Venne, Pierrette |
Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert |
BQ |
Saskatchewan (14)
|
Anderson, David |
Cypress Hills--Grasslands |
CA |
Bailey, Roy |
Souris--Moose Mountain |
CA |
Breitkreuz, Garry |
Yorkton--Melville |
CA |
Fitzpatrick, Brian |
Prince Albert |
CA |
Goodale, Ralph, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board |
Wascana |
Lib. |
Laliberte, Rick |
Churchill River |
Lib. |
Nystrom, Lorne |
Regina--Qu'Appelle |
NDP |
Pankiw, Jim |
Saskatoon--Humboldt |
PC/DR |
Proctor, Dick |
Palliser |
NDP |
Ritz, Gerry |
Battlefords--Lloydminster |
CA |
Skelton, Carol |
Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar |
CA |
Spencer, Larry |
Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre |
CA |
Vellacott, Maurice |
Saskatoon--Wanuskewin |
CA |
Yelich, Lynne |
Blackstrap |
CA |
Yukon (1)
|
Bagnell, Larry |
Yukon |
Lib. |
LIST OF STANDING AND SUB-COMMITTEES
(As of September 28, 2001 — 1st Session, 37th
Parliament)
Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural
Resources
|
Chair:
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Larry Bagnell
Gérard Binet
Ray Bonin
Serge Cardin
Jean-Guy Carignan
David Chatters
Reed Elley
John Finlay
Nancy Karetak-Lindell
Gerald Keddy
Richard Marceau
Pat Martin
Joe McGuire
Benoît Serré
Guy St-Julien
Maurice Vellacott
Total: (16)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Gérard Asselin
André Bachand
Claude Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Stéphane Bergeron
Bernard Bigras
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
Joe Clark
Joe Comartin
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Bev Desjarlais
Norman Doyle
Dale Johnston
Jason Kenney
Robert Lanctôt
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Anita Neville
Lorne Nystrom
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Pierre Paquette
Charlie Penson
Gilles-A. Perron
Joe Peschisolido
Lynne Yelich
|
Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
Chair:
|
Vice-Chair:
|
David Anderson
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Murray Calder
Claude Duplain
Mark Eyking
Marcel Gagnon
Howard Hilstrom
Charles Hubbard
Rick Laliberte
Larry McCormick
Dick Proctor
Bob Speller
Paul Steckle
Suzanne Tremblay
Rose-Marie Ur
Total: (16)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
Joe Comartin
Paul Crête
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Odina Desrochers
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Mario Laframboise
Robert Lanctôt
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Lorne Nystrom
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Pierre Paquette
Charlie Penson
Gilles-A. Perron
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Jean-Yves Roy
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Citizenship and Immigration
|
Chair:
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Mark Assad
Yvon Charbonneau
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral
Joe Fontana
Paul Forseth
John Godfrey
Art Hanger
Steve Mahoney
Inky Mark
Anita Neville
Jerry Pickard
David Price
Stéphan Tremblay
Tony Valeri
Judy Wasylycia-Leis
Lynne Yelich
Total: (16)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Francine Lalonde
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
|
Environment and Sustainable Development
|
Chair:
|
Vice-Chair:
|
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Stéphane Bergeron
Bernard Bigras
Rick Borotsik
Charles Caccia
Joe Comartin
Paul Forseth
Marcel Gagnon
John Herron
Gar Knutson
Karen Kraft Sloan
Rick Laliberte
Bob Mills
Karen Redman
Julian Reed
Andy Savoy
Hélène Scherrer
Alan Tonks
Alan Tonks
Total: (20)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Peter Adams
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Leon Benoit
Stéphane Bergeron
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Bev Desjarlais
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Robert Lanctôt
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Svend Robinson
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Peter Stoffer
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
Chair:
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Jean Augustine
George Baker
Aileen Carroll
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
John Duncan
Bill Graham
John Harvard
Marlene Jennings
Stan Keyes
Francine Lalonde
Diane Marleau
Keith Martin
Pat O'Brien
Brian Pallister
Pierre Paquette
Bernard Patry
Svend Robinson
Total: (18)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Sarkis Assadourian
André Bachand
Claude Bachand
Roy Bailey
Colleen Beaumier
Leon Benoit
Stéphane Bergeron
Bernard Bigras
Bill Blaikie
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
David Chatters
Joe Clark
Irwin Cotler
Paul Crête
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
Stan Dromisky
Antoine Dubé
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Mark Eyking
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Mac Harb
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
John Maloney
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Anita Neville
Lorne Nystrom
Deepak Obhrai
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
Beth Phinney
David Price
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Yves Rocheleau
Benoît Sauvageau
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Bob Speller
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Stéphan Tremblay
Tony Valeri
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Finance
|
Chair:
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Sue Barnes
Carolyn Bennett
Maurizio Bevilacqua
Scott Brison
Roy Cullen
Nick Discepola
Ken Epp
Albina Guarnieri
Rahim Jaffer
Jason Kenney
Sophia Leung
Yvan Loubier
John McCallum
Shawn Murphy
Lorne Nystrom
Pauline Picard
Gary Pillitteri
Monte Solberg
Total: (18)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Odina Desrochers
Norman Doyle
Antoine Dubé
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Christiane Gagnon
Cheryl Gallant
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold
Yvon Godin
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Monique Guay
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Alexa McDonough
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Pierre Paquette
Charlie Penson
Gilles-A. Perron
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Stéphan Tremblay
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Fisheries and Oceans
|
Chair:
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Sarkis Assadourian
Andy Burton
Andy Burton
John Cummins
John Cummins
Rodger Cuzner
Wayne Easter
Georges Farrah
Loyola Hearn
Dominic LeBlanc
James Lunney
Bill Matthews
Bill Matthews
Lawrence O'Brien
Jean-Yves Roy
Paul Steckle
Peter Stoffer
Suzanne Tremblay
Tom Wappel
Total: (19)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Gérard Asselin
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Ghislain Fournier
Marcel Gagnon
Cheryl Gallant
Yvon Godin
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Preston Manning
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Svend Robinson
Yves Rocheleau
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Procedure and House Affairs
|
Chair: Peter Adams
|
Vice-Chairs: Richard Harris
Jacques Saada
|
Pierre Brien
Marlene Catterall
Cheryl Gallant
Yvon Godin
Michel Guimond
Jay Hill
Jay Hill
Joe Jordan
Paul Harold Macklin
Carolyn Parrish
Geoff Regan
John Reynolds
John Richardson
Tony Tirabassi
Total: (17)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Roy Bailey
Michel Bellehumeur
Leon Benoit
Bill Blaikie
Garry Breitkreuz
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Rick Casson
David Chatters
John Cummins
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral
Stockwell Day
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Grant Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Réal Ménard
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Lorne Nystrom
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
Marcel Proulx
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Caroline St-Hilaire
Darrel Stinson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Sub-Committee on Parliamentary Calendar
|
Chair: Marlene Catterall
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Pierre Brien
Yvon Godin
Richard Harris
Jay Hill
Total: (5)
|
Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business
|
Chair: Carolyn Parrish
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Bill Blaikie
Garry Breitkreuz
Michel Guimond
Jay Hill
Marcel Proulx
Total: (6)
|
Health
|
Chair:
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Diane Ablonczy
Reg Alcock
André Bachand
Diane Bourgeois
Bonnie Brown
Jeannot Castonguay
Brenda Chamberlain
Stan Dromisky
James Lunney
Réal Ménard
Rob Merrifield
Carolyn Parrish
Hélène Scherrer
Judy Sgro
Yolande Thibeault
Judy Wasylycia-Leis
Total: (16)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral
Libby Davies
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
Pauline Picard
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
|
Canadian Heritage
|
Chair:
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Jim Abbott
Paul Bonwick
Sarmite Bulte
Rodger Cuzner
Claude Duplain
Christiane Gagnon
Cheryl Gallant
Roger Gallaway
John Harvard
Betty Hinton
Wendy Lill
Clifford Lincoln
Grant McNally
Dennis Mills
Caroline St-Hilaire
Tony Tirabassi
Total: (16)
|
Associated Members
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Bill Blaikie
Rick Borotsik
Diane Bourgeois
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
Joe Comartin
John Cummins
Libby Davies
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
Antoine Dubé
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Robert Lanctôt
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Pierre Paquette
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
Dick Proctor
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Benoît Sauvageau
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Suzanne Tremblay
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities
|
Chair:
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Eugène Bellemare
Paul Crête
Libby Davies
Raymonde Folco
Monique Guay
Tony Ianno
Dale Johnston
Judi Longfield
Gurbax Malhi
Serge Marcil
Joe McGuire
Anita Neville
Joe Peschisolido
Carol Skelton
Larry Spencer
Diane St-Jacques
Greg Thompson
Alan Tonks
Total: (18)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Rick Borotsik
Diane Bourgeois
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral
Stockwell Day
Nick Discepola
Norman Doyle
Antoine Dubé
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Christiane Gagnon
Marcel Gagnon
Cheryl Gallant
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold
Yvon Godin
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Robert Lanctôt
Wendy Lill
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Réal Ménard
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Jean-Yves Roy
Werner Schmidt
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Stéphan Tremblay
Maurice Vellacott
Judy Wasylycia-Leis
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Industry, Science and Technology
|
Chair:
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Larry Bagnell
Stéphane Bergeron
Bev Desjarlais
Claude Drouin
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold
Marlene Jennings
Walt Lastewka
Preston Manning
Dan McTeague
Charlie Penson
James Rajotte
Andy Savoy
Brent St. Denis
Chuck Strahl
Paddy Torsney
Susan Whelan
Total: (16)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Mauril Bélanger
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Pierre Brien
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Odina Desrochers
Norman Doyle
Antoine Dubé
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Christiane Gagnon
Cheryl Gallant
Yvon Godin
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Mario Laframboise
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Réal Ménard
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Lorne Nystrom
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Pierre Paquette
Joe Peschisolido
Dick Proctor
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Peter Stoffer
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
|
Justice and Human Rights
|
Chair: Bill Casey
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Carole-Marie Allard
Michel Bellehumeur
Bill Blaikie
Chuck Cadman
Irwin Cotler
Paul DeVillers
Ivan Grose
Dale Johnston
Peter MacKay
John Maloney
John McKay
Lynn Myers
Stephen Owen
Denis Paradis
Andy Scott
Kevin Sorenson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Pierrette Venne
Total: (20)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
Joe Clark
Joe Comartin
John Cummins
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral
Stockwell Day
Bev Desjarlais
Norman Doyle
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Derek Lee
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Réal Ménard
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Anita Neville
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Pierre Paquette
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Svend Robinson
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Larry Spencer
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Greg Thompson
Suzanne Tremblay
Maurice Vellacott
Judy Wasylycia-Leis
Elsie Wayne
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
Chair:
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Rob Anders
Claude Bachand
Roy Bailey
Colleen Beaumier
Leon Benoit
Stan Dromisky
John O'Reilly
Janko Peric
Louis Plamondon
David Pratt
David Price
Carmen Provenzano
Peter Stoffer
Elsie Wayne
Bryon Wilfert
Bob Wood
Total: (16)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
David Anderson
André Bachand
Stéphane Bergeron
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Monique Guay
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Francine Lalonde
Wendy Lill
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Svend Robinson
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Public Accounts
|
Chair:
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Robert Bertrand
John Bryden
Gerry Byrne
Odina Desrochers
John Finlay
Mac Harb
Rahim Jaffer
Sophia Leung
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Shawn Murphy
Gilles-A. Perron
Beth Phinney
Jean-Claude Rivest
Alex Shepherd
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
John Williams
Total: (18)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Bev Desjarlais
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Denis Paradis
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Benoît Sauvageau
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Peter Stoffer
Chuck Strahl
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
Lynne Yelich
|
Transport and Government Operations
|
Chair:
|
Vice-Chair: Jay Hill
|
Reg Alcock
Gerry Byrne
John Cannis
Joe Comuzzi
Bev Desjarlais
Brian Fitzpatrick
Peter Goldring
André Harvey
Ovid Jackson
Mario Laframboise
Ghislain Lebel
Val Meredith
James Moore
Marcel Proulx
Alex Shepherd
Paul Szabo
Total: (17)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Gérard Asselin
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
Paul Crête
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Odina Desrochers
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Paul Forseth
Ghislain Fournier
Christiane Gagnon
Cheryl Gallant
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Monique Guay
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Charles Hubbard
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Dominic LeBlanc
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Serge Marcil
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Réal Ménard
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
Dick Proctor
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Peter Stoffer
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Sub-Committee on Combating Corruption
|
Chair: John Williams
|
Vice-Chair:
|
John Bryden
Roy Cullen
Odina Desrochers
Marlene Jennings
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Shawn Murphy
Alex Shepherd
Greg Thompson
Total: (10)
|
SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Special Committee on non-medical use of drugs
|
Chair: Paddy Torsney
|
Vice-Chairs: Carole-Marie Allard
Randy White
|
André Bachand
Bernard Bigras
Libby Davies
Mac Harb
Dominic LeBlanc
Derek Lee
Réal Ménard
Stephen Owen
Jacques Saada
Carol Skelton
Total: (13)
|
STANDING JOINT COMMITTEES
Official Languages
|
Chair:
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Representing the House of Commons:Mauril Bélanger
Eugène Bellemare
Gérard Binet
Sarmite Bulte
Claude Drouin
Christiane Gagnon
John Godfrey
Yvon Godin
Peter Goldring
Richard Harris
John Herron
Raymond Lavigne
Dan McTeague
Scott Reid
Benoît Sauvageau
Yolande Thibeault
Total: (16)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Stéphane Bergeron
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
Joe Comartin
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Stéphane Dion
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Loyola Hearn
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Lorne Nystrom
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
Louis Plamondon
James Rajotte
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Suzanne Tremblay
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Library of Parliament
|
Chair:
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Representing the House of Commons:Mauril Bélanger
Carolyn Bennett
Robert Bertrand
Rick Borotsik
Marlene Catterall
Marcel Gagnon
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Betty Hinton
Jim Karygiannis
Raymond Lavigne
Wendy Lill
Jerry Pickard
Louis Plamondon
Jacques Saada
Benoît Sauvageau
Darrel Stinson
Andrew Telegdi
Total: (18)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
John Cummins
Libby Davies
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Howard Hilstrom
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Scrutiny of Regulations
|
Chair:
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Representing the House of Commons:Sue Barnes
Paul Bonwick
Jean-Guy Carignan
Joe Comuzzi
John Cummins
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Michel Guimond
Gar Knutson
Robert Lanctôt
Derek Lee
Paul Harold Macklin
Lynn Myers
Lorne Nystrom
Jim Pankiw
Pierrette Venne
Tom Wappel
Ted White
Total: (18)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Michel Bellehumeur
Leon Benoit
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Clark
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Ghislain Lebel
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Panels of Chairman of Legislative Committees
The Speaker
Hon. Peter Milliken
The The Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of
the Whole
Mr. Bob Kilger
The Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole
Mr. Réginald Bélair
The Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the
Whole House
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos
THE MINISTRY
According to precedence
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
|
Prime Minister of
Canada |
Hon. Herb Gray |
|
Deputy Prime Minister |
Hon. David Collenette |
|
Minister of Transport |
Hon. David Anderson |
|
Minister of the
Environment |
Hon. Ralph Goodale |
|
Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board |
Hon. Brian Tobin |
|
Minister of Industry |
Hon. Sheila Copps |
|
Minister of Canadian
Heritage |
Hon. John Manley |
|
Minister of Industry |
Hon. Paul Martin |
|
Minister of Finance |
Hon. Art Eggleton |
|
Minister of National
Defence |
Hon. Anne McLellan |
|
Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada |
Hon. Allan Rock |
|
Minister of Health |
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
|
Minister of Public Works and
Government Services |
Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
|
President of the Treasury
Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure |
Hon. Martin Cauchon |
|
Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of
Quebec) |
Hon. Jane Stewart |
|
Minister of Human Resources
Development |
Hon. Stéphane Dion |
|
President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs |
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
|
Minister for International
Trade |
Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
|
Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food |
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
|
Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans |
Hon. Ronald Duhamel |
|
Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Francophonie) |
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
|
Minister of Labour |
Hon. Robert Nault |
|
Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development |
Hon. Maria Minna |
|
Minister for International
Cooperation |
Hon. Elinor Caplan |
|
Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration |
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Minister of State (Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency) |
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
|
Secretary of State
(Children and Youth) |
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women) |
Hon. David Kilgour |
|
Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa) |
Hon. Jim Peterson |
|
Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions) |
Hon. Andy Mitchell |
|
Secretary of State (Rural
Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario) |
Hon. Gilbert Normand |
|
Secretary of State (Science,
Research and Development) |
Hon. Denis Coderre |
|
Secretary of State (Amateur
Sport) |
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan |
|
Secretary of State
(Asia-Pacific) |
PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
to the Prime Minister |
Mr. André Harvey |
|
to the Minister of Transport |
Mrs. Karen Redman |
|
to the Minister of the
Environment |
Mr. Benoît Serré |
|
to the Minister of Natural
Resources |
Mr. Claude Drouin |
|
to the Minister of Industry |
Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
|
to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage |
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
|
to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs |
Mr. John McCallum |
|
to the Minister of Finance |
Mr. John O'Reilly |
|
to the Minister of National
Defence |
Mr. Stephen Owen |
|
to the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada |
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
to the Minister of
Health |
Mr. Lynn Myers |
|
to the Solicitor General of
Canada |
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
to the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services |
Mr. Alex Shepherd |
|
to the President of the Treasury
Board |
Ms. Sophia Leung |
|
to the Minister of National
Revenue |
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
to the Minister of Human Resources
Development |
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
to the Minister of International
Trade |
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
to the Leader of the Government in
the House of Commons |
Mr. Larry McCormick |
|
to the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food |
Mr. Georges Farrah |
|
to the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans |
Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
|
to the Minister of Veterans
Affairs |
Mr. Gurbax Malhi |
|
to the Minister of Labour |
Mr. John Finlay |
|
to the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Nothern Development |
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
to the Minister for
International Cooperation |
Mr. Mark Assad |
|
to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration |