37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 059
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 10, 2001
1000
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Documents
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1005
| Foreign Affairs
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Public Accounts
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| PETITIONS
|
| Mining Industry
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Income Tax
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Foreign Affairs
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1010
| Trade
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Pesticides
|
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PATENT ACT
|
| Bill S-17. Second reading
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1015
1020
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1025
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1030
1035
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1040
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
1045
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1050
1055
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
1100
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1105
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1125
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1130
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1135
1140
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1145
1150
1155
1200
| Division on motion deferred
|
1205
| CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
|
| Bill S-11. Second reading
|
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. John Cannis |
1210
| Mr. James Rajotte |
1215
1220
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1225
1230
1235
1240
1245
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1250
1255
1300
1305
1310
1315
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1320
1325
1330
1335
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1340
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1345
1350
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| LEO HAYES HIGH SCHOOL
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| JESSICA KOOPMANS
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1400
| MINING INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Andy Savoy |
| TULIP FESTIVAL
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| NURSING WEEK
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gurbax Malhi |
| CHRISTOPHER AUGER
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1405
| VOLUNTEERS
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| CITIZENSHIP
|
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
| CHRYSOTILE ASBESTOS
|
| Mr. Gérard Binet |
| TELECOMMUNICATIONS
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1410
| BILINGUALISM IN THE CITY OF OTTAWA
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| MARIE CARDINAL
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| MARIE CARDINAL
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1415
| MEDICALERT MONTH
|
| Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1425
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| PARLIAMENTARIANS
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| URBAN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| SINGLE CURRENCY
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1440
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. David Collenette |
1445
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
|
| Mr. James Rajotte |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. James Rajotte |
1450
| Mr. John Cannis |
| POVERTY
|
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1455
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| FORESTRY INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Stephen Owen |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
|
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
| Hon. David Collenette |
1500
| PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
|
| Mr. Paul Harold Macklin |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
|
| Bill S-16. Second reading
|
| Hon. David Collenette |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1510
1515
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1520
1525
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1530
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
|
| Bill S-16. Second Reading
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1535
1540
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1545
1550
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1555
1600
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1605
| THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
1615
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
|
| Bill S-16. Second reading
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1620
1625
| CANADA SHIPPING ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-14. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Ronald Duhamel |
| Bill C-14. Third reading
|
| Hon. Ronald Duhamel |
1630
1635
| Mr. Andy Burton |
1640
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
1645
1650
1655
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1700
1705
| CANADA NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
| Bill C-10. Second reading
|
| Mr. Andy Burton |
1710
1715
1720
| Amendment
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1725
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| IRAQ
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Motion
|
1735
1740
1745
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1750
1755
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1800
1805
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1810
1815
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1820
1825
1830
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Trade
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1835
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 059
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, May 10, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
.TUC Prayers
1000
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Sometimes, in a spirit of mutual agreement, political parties
seek the co-operation of other parties. Today, in fact, the
government party asked for our co-operation with respect to a
request it was making.
In the same spirit of understanding and co-operation, I seek
unanimous consent for the tabling of the lease linking the
Auberge Grand-Mère with the Grand-Mère golf club.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House for the
tabling of this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1005
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise this morning to give the Speaker and the House notice of a
question of privilege.
I have informed the Speaker that I believe a serious question of
privilege has arisen from the conduct of both the Minister of
Foreign Affairs and his officials concerning documentation with
respect to the activities of Talisman Energy in Sudan and the use
of its airfields by the government of Sudan for offensive
military purposes.
In view of the fact that the minister is not in the House this
morning, I wanted to give notice that I will be pursuing this
question of privilege at the earliest opportunity when the
minister and myself are both in the House.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to six
petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
relating to vote 20 under finance in the main estimates for the
fiscal year ending on March 31, 2002.
I also have the honour to table the fourth report of the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts relating to the Public
Accounts of Canada, 1999-2000.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts requests that the government table a comprehensive
response to this fourth report.
* * *
PETITIONS
MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of residents of the
city of Val-d'Or and the Vallée de l'Or RCM, as well as on behalf
of all miners working in the mining industry in the
Abitibi-Témiscamingue region.
The petition states that the government should act to reinforce
its presence and increase its activities in mining regions that
are experiencing difficulty in adapting to the new economy. The
government should make the rules governing existing programs more
flexible and ensure they are being used in resource regions.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to set up a
financial assistance program for thin capitalization mines in
Quebec's resource regions.
[English]
INCOME TAX
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I
submit a petition on behalf of Terry Jessop and other
constituents in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
In order to help Canada's economy and reduce our unemployment,
the petitioners request that parliament enact legislation to
permit that one vacation per year taken entirely in Canada be
subject to a tax deduction for income tax purposes.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from
constituents from across the country.
The petitioners ask that the House of Commons and the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade consider Mr.
Hun Sen, the leader of Cambodia, to have committed war crimes,
crimes against humanity and genocide, and to implement a
resolution as soon as possible to bring this individual to trial
and prevent further tragedy.
[Translation]
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 39
petitioners in and around my riding, I am tabling a petition
asking the government to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post
Corporation Act.
I was informed yesterday that United Parcel, the major American
courier, is suing Canada Post for unfair competition under
chapter 11 of the North American free trade agreement, or NAFTA.
1010
Section 13(5) of the Canada Post legislation grants to this
corporation a preference that is refused to other courier
companies.
Moreover, rural route couriers are paid less than the minimum
wage.
I table this petition.
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to table a petition signed by residents of my
constituency of Burnaby—Douglas and others in British Columbia.
The petitioners point out that since 1994 the Canadian
government has been secretly negotiating a future free trade area
of the Americas agreement with 34 countries of the Americas and
the business community. They are concerned about the negative
impacts this agreement could have on the environment, on their
communities, on their children and, indeed, on all the people of
the Americas. They do not wish to have a treaty that is inspired
by the destructive elements of the WTO, NAFTA or the MAI. They
point out that this has been negotiated in secret for too long
and that the right to know is fundamental in a democracy.
Therefore the petitioners call upon the Canadian government to
immediately publish the integral version of the free trade area
of the Americas negotiation text. Certainly that request is long
overdue.
PESTICIDES
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of over 300
Canadians, mostly residents in my riding but also some in Nepean,
Kingston and elsewhere.
The petitioners call upon parliament to immediately place a
moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides until such
time as there is scientific evidence demonstrating that these
pesticides are safe.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Questions Nos. 15 and 16 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 15—Mr. Greg Thompson:
With respect to the recent Human Resources Development Canada,
HRDC, investigations regarding shell fishermen, clam diggers and
buyers in New Brunswick Southwest: (a) how many individuals
were called in for interrogation; (b) were these interrogations
conducted solely by HRDC officials or in conjunction with other
agencies or departments; (c) were these investigations
conducted as a result of violations of employment insurance
regulations by clam diggers or clam buyers; (d) were the
persons or principals interrogated advised by written or verbal
communication identifying the specific infractions being
investigated; (e) was supporting documentations from other
government agencies and departments in addition to HDRC records
of alleged abuse or fraud, disclosed to those individuals and
principals being interviewed; (f) what are the names and the
addresses of all persons and principals interrogated; (g) what
are the names of the employees who carried out the interviews and
what government department or agency employs them; (h) was a
report of this investigation submitted to the regional director
manager, investigation and control; (i) was there an internal
departmental investigation done to determine any real or
potential conflict of interest in regard to departmental
officials assigned to these investigations; (j) was a report
immediately forwarded from the regional director manager to the
director, control programs, national headquarters; and (k) at
what time and date was the minister first made aware ot fhe
magnitude of the investigation?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of the Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Human Resources Development Canada, HRDC, is mandated to
carry out investigations in relation to the employment insurance
program. As part of the investigation HRDC officials conduct
interviews, not interrogations, with clients. Investigators
adhere to a strict code of conduct that respects the rights and
dignity of clients. The policies and guidelines on the code of
conduct to which investigators must adhere while conducting
investigations are outlined in the investigation and control
manual. This manual chapter has recently been updated. However it
is still in draft format.
As this investigation is ongoing it would be inappropriate to
provide specific information on this case.
(a) HRDC investigators interview clients in accordance with our
code of conduct.
(b) These interviews were carried out solely by HRDC personnel.
(c) Although an investigation commences as a result of a
suspicion of abuse, at that point it cannot be determined if a
violation has been committed. Before making that determination
HRDC investigators gather information and then interview clients
to validate the information obtained. A conclusion on whether a
violation has occurred can only be made once the investigation is
completed.
(d) All investigations must be carried out within high standards
of professional behaviour. Our information to date indicates
that this investigation, like others the department conducts
every year, is being carried out with the high standards of
behaviour the department expects of its employees.
(e) During the course of an interview supporting documentation
received from other government agencies could be disclosed to an
EI client if the information is specific to their case and the
client is required to provide a response. It would be
inappropriate to provide a specific answer to the question as the
investigation is ongoing.
(f) As per the Privacy Act, the Employment Insurance Act, and
associated policies and procedures this information is
confidential.
(g) This is an ongoing investigation and it would be
inappropriate to release the names of the investigators.
(h) This investigation is not finalized. Therefore a report on
the investigation has not yet been completed by the
investigators.
There are many activities involved in conducting an
investigation including completing reports. For instance, the
investigator gathers information, verifies its accuracy by
various means including contacting employers and claimants via
mail, telephone or in person interviews. Payroll records may also
be inspected to verify employment.
Upon completion of an investigation investigators are required
to write a report. The steps taken, facts received and records of
any interviews are documented in the report of investigation
which is the HRDC departmental form used to report on an
investigation. The report of investigation is then referred to an
HRDC insurance officer to make a decision based on the
recommendations and information gathered during the
investigation. Additional reports are sometimes prepared for
cases of a sensitive nature and are usually sent to the regional
level.
(i) The investigation and control code of conduct specifically
directs all investigation staff to declare any real, potential or
apparent conflict of interest. This is also the case for all
public servants and members of the judiciary.
(j) Our information indicates that the investigators have been
taking the appropriate steps in these circumstances and there has
not been a need for a report to the regional manager. Such a
report might be required if it had been brought to the attention
of a manager that the conflict of interest guidelines were not
followed.
(k) The issue was brought to the attention of the minister on
February 6, 2001, following a reference to this investigation in
the media.
It is not HRDC policy to inform the minister of every
investigation that is undertaken.
Question No. 16—Mr. Greg Thompson:
With respect to the HRDC investigation process: (a) why is
regional discretion in regard to the department's caution
statement permitted to be exercised by HRDC officials; (b) has
the department carried out an internal investigation concerning
the practice of using the HRDC official consent form to obtain
statements from claimants; (c) what is the procedure used by
the department to ensure the reliability and credibility of all
third party reports used to initiate investigations; (d) are
interrogations conducted with the use of audio or video equipment
in order to determine the accuracy and validity of testimony
provided and techniques used during interrogation by departmental
officials; (e) has HRDC considered providing duty counsel to
avoid, minimize or eliminate any charter of rights challenges;
(f) has the minister been counselled by the department
regarding section 2.20 of the HRDC document investigation and
control manual and, if so, what measures and directives have been
taken to correct the apparent contradictions between this
document and subsection 41(5) of the Employment Insurance Act;
(g) why does the claimant not receive a copy of the signed
statement of declaration; (h) why does the investigation and
control manual not emphasize the legal responsibility of
providing the claimant with a copy of the signed statement of
declaration; (i) what process does the department use to evaluate the
investigation control officer's performance; and (j) what
specific action has the minister initiated to address the issue
of incompetence and inexperience, as noted in the department's
prosecution program review report and the auditor general's
report regarding the investigation control officer?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): (a) Most contacts between citizens and Investigation and
control officers, investigators, are discussions that involve
exchanging information to obtain clarification and explanations
on their claims.
The investigation and control manual clearly directs
investigators to caution an individual prior to taking a
statement when the investigator has reasonable grounds to believe
that the individual has committed an offence that is likely to
lead to a prosecution. Less than 1% of all investigations lead to
prosecution every year. These procedures are followed by
investigators in human resource centres across Canada. The
decision to caution a client is based solely on whether
prosecution is a consideration, as opposed to the geographical
location.
(b) Departmental officials consulted are unaware of such a form.
(c) An investigation can be initiated from a variety of sources
including tips from third parties. These tips can be received
verbally, in writing, by e-mail or by phone and they can be from
known or unknown sources. Human Resources Development Canada,
HRDC, has the responsibility to protect the integrity of the
employment insurance, EI, fund and as such has an obligation to
investigate alleged fraud and abuse. While looking into such tips
HRDC personnel undertake many activities to verify the accuracy
of information received. This is the case whether the source of
the tip is known or unknown. This could include but is not
limited to contacting employers to verify payroll and employment
records, requests by mail or telephone to claimants, and in
person interviews.
(d) HRDC personnel interview clients in accordance with
guidelines set out in the departmental code of conduct. The
policy for investigation and control does not require the audio
or video recording of interviews, but it does not preclude it
either. Clients can however request such recordings.
(e) HRDC personnel adhere to the legal principles governing the
cautioning of individuals and their rights to legal counsel.
Investigators do not have the authority to arrest or detain
individuals. Nevertheless, when it is anticipated that an
investigation may lead to a prosecution, clients are informed of
their right to retain and instruct counsel without delay.
HRDC personnel will provide clients with a reasonable
opportunity to consult counsel and they will provide them with
information on legal aid if appropriate. HRDC personnel will
cease questioning if the client wishes to retain counsel.
Only 1% of all investigations lead to prosecution. In view of
this, the department has not considered providing duty counsel.
(f) The directives provided in section 2.20 must be read in
conjunction with the preceding sections of this chapter.
As stated in section 2.20 officials can direct claimants under
subsection 41(5) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, now changed to
subsection 50(5) of the Employment Insurance Act, to attend an
interview to provide additional information on their claims. The
form used for this purpose is called a direction to report. It is
the client's responsibility to attend such an interview and
provide information as required. Should they decide not to attend
or to withhold information, their benefits could be affected.
If the purpose of the interview pertains to a more serious
matter that could lead to a prosecution, investigators use
different methods to communicate with claimants such as by
telephone or by using the form appointment for interview. In
these types of interviews clients are informed of their right to
retain and instruct counsel without delay.
The minister has not been consulted on the procedures outlined
in the manuals since they are in line with the authorities
delegated to HRDC employees. HRDC policies and procedures are in
accordance with the law and the charter of rights and freedoms.
The investigation and control directorate is currently updating
its manual to ensure the instructions and procedures are simple
and clear.
(g) HRDC does not use a departmental form specifically titled
statement of declaration. The report of interview is the
departmental form used by investigators to document the
information obtained during the interview. It is HRDC policy
however that all clients are provided with a copy of the report
of interview. All clients have a right to request a copy of their
report.
(h) The investigation and control manual directs investigators
to provide copies of the report of interview to the client.
(i) The timeliness, accuracy, clarity of documentation and
fairness in an investigation are some of the key elements that
are considered in the assessment of the investigation and control
officer's performance. These evaluations can be carried out in
various ways including such activities as reviewing
investigator's files and in person feedback sessions.
To maintain a high level of skills in its workforce HRDC
provides investigators with ongoing training and refresher
courses including such subjects as investigative skills and
interviewing skills.
(j) The downsizing of federal government employees which took
place during the 1990s has resulted in the loss of more
experienced investigators. To help build expertise in its
workforce HRDC has put in place national training programs,
monitoring and quality management policies which ensure that its
investigation and control officers conduct investigations in a
professional, courteous and fair manner.
With regard to the reference to the auditor general's
criticisms, his December 2000 report referred to the working
relationship between HRDC and Canada Customs and Revenue Agency,
CCRA, in dealing with abuse and fraud in the context of current
investigations into the activities of certain farm labour
contractors in the lower Fraser Valley in British Columbia. The
concerns raised in this report were essentially with the role of
CCRA rulings officers, their training, general knowledge of the
case, their investigative experience, ability to use our
information, et cetera. Both departments recognize the need for
co-operation and communication and have been working together to
improve the working relationship.
[Translation]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PATENT ACT
The House resumed from May 7 consideration of the motion that
Bill S-17, an act to amend the Patent Act, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to indicate at this time that I will be sharing my
time with my colleague from Vancouver East.
I am pleased to rise today to continue the debate on Bill S-17,
an act to amend the Patent Act. I guess to continue the debate
would be much along the lines of saying that it has become
apparent that the New Democratic Party is the only party taking
part in the debate, and that is truly disappointing. When bills
such as this come to the House it is important to have an
opposition party that has a different perspective from the
government's.
The bill would raise the price of prescription drugs in Canada
and take over $200 million from the pockets of Canadians. All
opposition parties should be up in arms and the government should
be hanging its head in shame. However, on the first day of the
debate on the bill, it became very clear that we were the only
ones speaking out on the issue.
The Alliance industry critic, the hon. member from Peace River,
was absolutely thrilled and praised the government. He ran out
of words on how great the bill was. For a party that talks about
keeping money in the pockets of Canadians, it is rather
shameful that it is more keen on keeping profit with the name
brand drug companies, making sick people pay more and putting stress
on our health care system by increasing the cost of drugs.
The Alliance members, as in a good many cases, are all talk and
no action. Although they tell Canadians they will be there for
them, they really are not. They are there for corporations. They
are not speaking out on behalf of Canadians on this issue.
For those who do not realize exactly what the bill entails, Bill
S-17 is an act to amend the Patent Act. The major issue is that
the bill came through the Senate.
1015
It is becoming very apparent that whenever the government feels
great shame and wants to rush a bill through it introduces it in
the Senate and has it sent over to the House of Commons. There
are crucial moments when it has to get the legislation through
quickly. We all know that because of World Trade Organization
rulings the government has to deal with the bill or be in
contravention of the WTO.
The bill is intended to come into compliance with World Trade
Organization rulings. It is not intended to do what is best for
Canadians, what is best for Canada or, for that matter, what is
best for the people of the world. The bill is intended to come
into compliance with World Trade Organizations rulings to put
more money in the pockets of name brand drug companies.
The WTO rulings require that Canada lengthen the term of patent
protection on drugs from 17 years to 20 years. It is not as if
there has not been protection for patent drug companies. The
former Progressive Conservative government made sure that drug
companies would make money. Patent protection was increased
under its reign.
The Liberal Party, which was the opposition at that time,
slammed the Tories for coming across with a terrible piece of
legislation that increased patent protection. Now that the
Liberals are in government they are increasing it even more. This
is much along the lines of the Tories being opposed to the GST
and the Liberals when in opposition slamming the Tories on the
GST. There is no difference whatsoever.
The bill will eliminate a stockpiling exception which permitted
generic drug companies to stockpile an inventory of patented
drugs in the last six month period leading up to the expiration
of a patent so that they were ready to go to market as soon as
the patent expired. The generic companies were ready to put the
drug on the market to provide some cost relief to patients and
users of the health care system in Canada, the people we should
be looking after.
As a result of the elimination of the stockpiling exception
generic drug manufacturers will no longer be able to build up
their inventories before first going to market. Patent holders
will enjoy a whole lot sooner a period of de facto monopoly
pricing after the normal expiration of the patent. The Canadian
health care system, government and individual insurance plans
will have to pay more during that delay.
During the de facto period available to brand name drug
companies they have put injunctions in place to delay even
further generic drug companies coming on line. If there was a
risk of a normal industry patent being infringed upon, the
company would have to go through a court process.
Because of the notice of compliance regulations through the
Minister of Health and the acceptance of generic drugs coming on
the market, brand name drug companies have been given an
additional time period whereby they do not have to go through the
normal court process. I will give the House a clear version of
this point.
Contrary to regular court procedures of settling patent
litigation in all other Canadian industrial sectors, the notice
of compliance regulations allow triggering an automatic
injunction blocking the regulatory approval of Health Canada of
generic drugs for 24 months, based on a simple claim of
infringement regardless of the merits of the brands patent case
and without compensation for any abuse to the generic
manufacturer.
In over 80% of cases decided since the 1998 amendments the
courts confirmed that the block generics did not infringe on any
valid patents. On top of name brand drug companies now having an
extended patent, because of the notice of compliance through the
office of the Minister of Health an additional two months will be
added for no reason whatsoever. This will be done at the whim of
brand name drug companies because they want to make more money.
It is not greedy enough that they have extended patents or that
before they put affordable drugs on the market they will see
people die on the streets.
It is not greedy enough that they put on an injunction. We do
not have regulations in place to make sure they cannot put
injunctions in place. We do not have regulations in place to
make sure that they need to have just cause. They just need to
have a whim that it will infringe on them. They do not have to
go through the normal court process. They just prolong the
period of time when generic drugs can come on the market.
1020
There are those who say that brand name drug companies are
putting a lot of money into research. Yes, they are putting some
money into research, but they do not put the whole pool of money
into research. A lot of the research is done over long periods
of time through other sectors of the industry. There is
historical research and development incorporated into the
development of new drugs.
It is not all done strictly by drug manufacturers, to say
nothing of the fact that they have received government funds and
the benefits from people being trained in universities. It is
not as if they have not benefited from the system in place.
The same people who say that we have to support brand name drug
companies because of all the research they do sing the praises of
those companies. Those same companies would not allow or tried
to fight countries to prevent them from producing crucial AIDS
medication. They did not want generic treatments to be sold at
affordable prices in third world countries. We had to have a
major world outcry over what those drug companies were doing.
People infected with AIDS were literally dying by the thousands
but the brand name drug companies still wanted their last bit of
blood. They wanted every last penny they could squeeze out of a
dying population in a major epidemic.
I had a lot more that I could have said, but I see that my time
is running out and there are a number of members who want to
speak to this issue, certainly my colleague from Vancouver East
and others. I encourage members of the House to recognize that
this is a serious issue in Canada and a cost to our health care
system. I suggest members show a whole lot more interest in what
is beneficial for all Canadians and not just for drug companies.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have listened with interest to the eloquent comments of my
colleague from Churchill, who is also our spokesperson on industry
and primarily responsible for this legislation.
The hon. member has reviewed the quite appalling history of the
Liberal Party on this issue. I am one of those members who was
actually in the House in 1987 when Bill C-22 was brought before
it by the Conservative government of the day. I recall vividly
Liberal MPs viciously and vigorously opposing the legislation.
They said it was a sellout to multinational drug companies.
An hon. member: They were right.
Mr. Svend Robinson: They were absolutely right, as my
colleague says. I recall in 1992 when Bill C-91 was brought
before the House, again by a Conservative government. The now
Minister of Industry, the member from Newfoundland, was up on his
hind legs spitting nails and demanding that the government stand
up for seniors, for the poor, for provincial drug plans, and
oppose the draconian legislation.
What have we seen since then? The liberals got into government and in
one of the most pathetic scenes I have seen in many years the
Minister of Industry turned himself inside out, grovelled in
front of Brian Mulroney over in Davos, Switzerland, and said he
was sorry and that Mr. Mulroney was right. It was pathetic.
Would the member for Churchill like to comment on the record of
the Liberal Party on this issue? If there were some other
comments that she was not able to get in, I would be glad to hear
them as well.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the actions
of the new Minister of Industry in the House and know his
historical background with regard to the issue. Yes, it is
extremely pathetic. There is absolutely nothing worse than a
politician who says one thing prior to an election, who says one
thing while in opposition, and then does something else.
1025
That kind of attitude and that lack of principles result in
people having no faith in a democracy and a parliamentary system.
For the sake of getting elected they mislead and try to pretend
they are there to do what is best for Canadians. Then they get
into government and tell Brian Mulroney that they are sorry, that
he was right. I guess it must have been the two Brians. That
must have been what did it. It is disappointing.
I want to reflect upon my colleague's comments when he mentioned
Bill C-22 and Bill C-91. The difference between when those bills
came up and this one came up is that the government is sneaking
this one through the Senate, allowing next to no discussion
nationwide on the issue. That is what is happening. Now it is
in a panic state, will impose closure and do whatever because
that is the way the government operates.
The issue is important to all Canadians, to seniors most
definitely. Some of the most vulnerable people have been faced
with huge increases in energy costs and a lack of government
funding in numerous areas. It is extremely disheartening to see
the government imposing an even greater expense on them. It is
absolutely unacceptable.
I expect a good number of seniors to be around at the next
election. They are a stalwart bunch and they will weather the
storm under the government. I want them to remember, especially
those seniors in Ontario, how the Liberal members voted on this
bill.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I agree with the member's comments about the government
making promises during campaigns and then not respecting those
promises. We saw it on the GST. We saw it on the free trade
deal.
The member also made some comments about the Canadian Alliance
critic never having enough good words to say about the government
on this issue. I suggest that the Canadian Alliance critic was
saying that because this was agreed to in NAFTA, in the free
trade agreement, we can continue to have this special trade
agreement and relationship with the Americans and we have to
respect the agreement.
Would the member be willing to have Canadians in her
constituency, thousands of them, lose their jobs because we do
not respect the trade deal? Is that what the member is
suggesting should happen?
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, absolutely not, but I
do not think we should go into those negotiations on our knees,
begging. We have a great nation. We have a great supply of
resources. We have everything to be proud of. We do not have to
grovel when we are in trade negotiations. Nobody is opposed to
trade agreements.
The Alliance Party is often saying that parliament should decide
what is happening within the country. Parliament should decide
what happens, not trade agreements made by people who are not
elected. That is the issue.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
wholeheartedly agree with the member for Churchill and the member
for Burnaby—Douglas.
Barely two weeks ago we were in Quebec City with 60,000, 70,000
or maybe even 80,000 people marching for democracy. They were
trying to take down the wall and trying to be heard. I think it
is important to note that the central issue underlying that
process was about defending our democratic system. It was about
defending the right of democratically elected parliaments,
legislatures or even municipal governments, to uphold the public
interest and to make decisions that benefit the public interest.
I take note of what happened in Quebec City because the
opposition to the FTAA is directly related to the debate we are
having in the House today on Bill S-17 and the drug patent law.
We have probably the clearest example of the tail wagging the
dog.
We have the Government of Canada rushing around to change its
legislation to meet what? Is it something based on public debate
and discourse in the country? No. It is something based on a
World Trade Organization tribunal ruling.
1030
There is the evidence of what we are up against in the country
as a result of the capitulation by the government to
international trade agreements that are literally, as my
colleague from Churchill said, bleeding away not just people's
ability to access prescription drugs in a reasonable and
affordable way, but bleeding away our ability to make decisions
about our country, decisions that affect how Canadians live, our
quality of life and in whose interests we speak in the House.
I feel very strongly that I need to say loud and clear to
Canadians that every single member of the New Democratic Party
was in Quebec City marching for democracy and upholding the
public interest, and we are in the House today to fight the bill.
The NDP is the only party in parliament to do this, because we in
our party understand that the bill is very wrong.
We have heard some of the history of the bill. It is not just
something that has popped up out of the blue in the last few
months. It goes back to 1987 and the glorious days of the
Mulroney government, which started changing the laws to favour
these massive pharmaceutical companies by changing the patent
rules.
Let us be very clear about this. It is about creating
legislation that favours the profit making interests of very
large pharmaceutical companies at the expense of providing
accessible, generic prescriptions and drugs to Canadians. This
is now taking place on a global scale.
That happened in 1987. As has been so eloquently pointed out by
my colleagues, it is very sad to see the hypocrisy that takes
place. The mighty Liberals who took on the Mulroney government
in 1987 and again in 1992 seemed to understand that those laws,
Bill C-22 and Bill C-91 in those days, were a great threat to our
public health care system and to Canadians' accessibility to
affordable drugs.
Where are the Liberals on this issue now? They are not even
neutral on the question. They have completely come around 360°
and are now peddling the interests of those same pharmaceutical
companies that 10 years ago they were speaking against. Then
years ago they clearly outlined their concerns about this.
A few weeks ago before the summit of the Americas in Quebec
City, I attended the foreign affairs committee meeting. The
witnesses who came forward spoke directly to the issue of
intellectual property rights, as they are called, and the
so-called rights of these companies to restrict access to the
generic versions of their drugs.
At that committee I heard a man speak. I forget his name. He
was very smooth. He was the chief spokesperson for the
pharmaceutical association. He had the gall to say that trade
agreements like the FTAA and the orders that come from the WTO,
which prompted this legislation, improve the quality of life for
all people around the globe, that intellectual property rights
and trade agreements actually improve quality of life.
I sat there thinking how far removed from the truth that was. If
anyone needs evidence of that, we have only to look at what took
place in South Africa, where 39 pharmaceutical companies were
actually forced, through public pressure, to withdraw their
claims against the South African government.
Millions of people who live in sub-Saharan Africa are dying of
HIV and AIDS. Millions of people in Latin America or Central
America and around the globe are desperately in need of essential
medicines, not just in terms of HIV and AIDS but for things like
TB or hepatitis C. These people understand that these trade
agreements are not about improving the quality of life for
ordinary people. They are not about improving the quality of
life for poor people or people who are sick. This is about
conferring greater concentrated power to those multinational
corporations and the government is allowing to happen through the
bill.
1035
That is why we stand today in absolute opposition to what is
taking place. I would like to point out to Canadians that the
consequences of what would happen because of the bill are very
dire indeed. What would the consequences be? Extending the
patent from the current 17 years, which is bad enough, to 20
years, as well as prohibiting generic companies from stockpiling
drugs, means that the most likely thing that would happen would
undoubtedly be a dramatic increase in prescription and drug
prices for Canadians. There is no question about that.
As this debate continues and the issue continues to unfold, we
in the New Democratic Party have a very great resolve to work
with other organizations, the labour movement, the Council of
Canadians, environmental groups and seniors' groups, who
understand what is really at stake here. We have a role to play
in parliament in trying to defeat this kind of legislation, but
we also have a role in working with a broader community and
bringing pressure to bear.
Maybe one day we will get to the point where we have the kind of
mobilization that took place in South Africa in defeating the
multinational corporations who were seeking litigation to prevent
people from accessing essential medicines. Maybe one day we will
see that type of challenge in Canada. At the very least today,
we have to stand in opposition to this legislation. We think it
is bad legislation and is nothing more than conferring greater
concentrations of power and profit to fewer multinational
corporations.
Surely that cannot be in the public interest. I defy any member
of the House to stand up and tell us how this can be
characterized as being in the public interest. The evidence,
going back to 1987 and 1992 and now to what has happened with the
FTAA, tells us that the opposite is true, that this is a bad
piece of legislation. It must be defeated, as must these
international trade agreements that undermine the ability of our
governments to make the very kinds of decisions that would ensure
this legislation would not go ahead.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I can certainly understand and
support some of the comments the hon. member made with respect to
ensuring that any agreements to be negotiated pass through the
House and that the Canadian public should be made very aware of
and be knowledgeable about what is being negotiated, how it is
being negotiated and what the principles are.
Quite frankly, though, with respect to the other comments about
trying to defeat the free trade agreement and trying to demolish
free trade, what is the member thinking of?
Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, and
leaders of poverty groups in South and Central America and in
Africa want trade. They want the obstacles and the barriers to
trade removed. They said if there is one thing they want it is
trade, not aid. For heaven's sake, they said, remove the
barriers to trade that prevent us from maximizing our potential.
Opposition to free trade is opposition to the poorest people of
our hemisphere and in this world of ours. It is opposition to
them being able to get on their feet. The alternative to free
trade is a country like Albania or the former U.S.S.R. I ask the
member how can she justify being against free trade when the
people behind the free trade agreements are trying to deal with
fair labour laws and good environmental laws and trying to
improve the lot of the poorest people in our hemisphere.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate and
welcome the comments from the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
However the member knows full well that the issue here is not
trade just as a word. Trade has existed for thousands of years
among peoples whether they were part of a nation or not. Trade
is a part of who we are as human beings. The issue we are
debating through this legislation and under things like the FTAA
is the issue of the rules that are created around those trade
agreements.
1040
For example, there are rules that create such restrictive
policies around intellectual property rights that we end up with
a piece of legislation such as this which will actually deny
people access to affordable drugs in Canada. Surely that is what
the debate is about. Let us not send up smokescreens and say the
NDP is against trade.
If the hon. member has listened to any of the debates in the
House he will know that the NDP has advanced a position on a
policy of fair trade based on respecting the dignity and rights
of all people. The NDP has a policy of trade that respects the
authority of parliament to make decisions in the public interest.
I will say again that this piece of legislation is the complete
opposite of that. The House is debating the legislation because
the WTO, and who the heck is that, has dictated that it shall be
done. Is that not wrong? I believe it is.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to become involved in the debate,
but I just cannot resist it. In 1945 at the end of the second
world war, two Asian countries made choices. India made a choice
to throw up barriers and be an island unto itself. Another
country had another option and that was to become a global
trader. That was Japan. Since the destruction of Japan in 1945,
the Japanese have made their economy the second biggest in the
world.
The NDP member seems to suggest that there are no advantages to
trade or competition. Would anybody seriously say that the auto
industry in North America is not better today because of Toyota
or Honda and that the products we have in the automotive sector
have not been improved because of that type of competition? That
really seriously ignores a lot of reality.
Another area that was raised is the issue of intellectual
property, which is what I will pose my question on. In regard to
drugs, I know of companies that have spent up to $600 million or
$700 million on research into new drugs which were never
approved. I invested in some of those companies. I know what
their stock was worth when it was over.
I am asking the member to explain how in the world we are going
to get new breakthrough drugs that provide effective treatment
for a lot of diseases if the people who are taking all the
risks—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The hon. member for
Vancouver East.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I will briefly respond.
Perhaps the member did not listen to the whole debate. I clearly
articulated the position of the NDP, which is not that we are
somehow opposed to all trade. We are talking about the need to
create trade deals that have fair rules attached to them. That
is the essential point.
As far as the member's second point is concerned, unfortunately
it seems like he has really bought the line of the pharmaceutical
companies. Yes, we need research to be done, but why do we need
to create so many restrictions which allow them to monopolize an
industry and create a scenario whereby people cannot afford to
pay for their drugs? This is the problem we face.
1045
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
this bill is very important to our party. We have indicated to
the government that we do not intend to hold up this debate for
much longer, and we appreciate the government's co-operation in
this matter.
For us the bill and the issues that it raises with respect to
trade agreements and drug pricing go to the heart of our
objection to what has been going on in this country for the last
10 to 15 years. I guess it has been 14 years if we go back to
1987 when the first bill on changing the drug patent legislation
in Canada first came before the House of Commons.
At that time it was a Progressive Conservative government under
the leadership of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. A bill was
introduced to reduce and transform the way in which we had
constituted our drug patent and drug pricing policies in this
country. Until that point, we had a policy which had been
established some decades before whereby generic drug
manufacturers could bring onto the market generic imitations of
new brand name drugs after only two years.
This was one of the reasons why we had one of the most envied
health care systems in the world, not just in terms of quality
but also in terms of being able to keep costs down. We did not
have to pay these exorbitant brand name costs or at least we did
not have to pay them for very long. We only had to pay them for
two years, then after that our health care system could begin to
use and doctors could begin to prescribe these new generic
replacements. Of course the brand name drugs were still
available and could still be used.
In 1987 we understood, and we still understand, as a prelude to
the free trade agreement negotiations between Canada and the
United States, the Conservative government at that time, in a
very strange form of negotiation, made a big concession before it
even got to the table by giving into the Americans on this
particular issue. It was not just to the Americans. There were
a great many French multinational drug companies and others that
were involved. We were very much against this at the time. We
were against it again in 1992, when Bill C-91 was brought in. I
believe the bill in 1987 was Bill C-22.
We were against it then and today we are against Bill S-17 which
is part of a sequence of bills that have progressively eliminated
the ability of Canada to have its own independent drug patent and
drug pricing policy. The fact that we could not and cannot
maintain a system that worked so well for Canada, which was the
result of a political decision taken in this country many years
ago, is for us transparently what is wrong with the free trade
agreement. The fact is the rights, privileges and profits of
multinational drug companies come first. The rights, the
privileges and the health of Canadians insofar as their need for
access to cheaper drugs and collectively in terms of their need
for a health care system that is less costly rather than more
costly comes second.
Property is put before the public interest in such a blatant way
that even the Liberals when they were in opposition could see
this. Or did they? We have spent a fair bit of time and
appropriately so pointing out that the Liberals have changed
their position.
1050
However I maintain that at another level it is not so much that
they changed their position, it was the fact that they were
insincere in their opposition to Bill C-22 and Bill C-91 in the
first place, in the same way they were insincere in their
opposition to the free trade agreement, with the possible
exception of their leader at the time in 1988, Mr. Turner, who I
have come to the opinion was sincere in his opposition to the
free trade agreement. At the same time, he led a party that was
full of people, some of whom later became Prime Minister and
Minister of Finance, who were not opposed to the free trade
agreement.
I believe now that they were not genuinely opposed to Bill C-22
and Bill C-91 at the time because they knew, as we know, that the
Liberal Party ultimately would do the bidding of the big business
community. There are few businesses in this country and
internationally that are bigger than the multinational drug
companies.
It is not just that they do the bidding of these companies, the
problem is now the bidding and the interests of these
multinational drug companies is enshrined in international trade
agreements, like the World Trade Organization. Now these
interests can be advanced without there being a political
decision or without anybody having to take responsibility for it.
Nowadays, all the drug companies have to do is invoke the WTO and
no governing political party takes any responsibility for it.
The Liberals get up and say they have to respect our
international obligations and that they have to respect the trade
agreements that they have signed, never mind that, at least with
respect to NAFTA and the WTO, it was the Liberals who signed
Canada on to the NAFTA and the WTO. Why did they sign these
agreements if they were sincere in their opposition back in 1987
and 1992? Only they can answer that, and we look forward some
day to an honest reckoning of just what happened along the road
to corporate Damascus on the part of the Liberals.
For us, although the bill implements a certain ruling of the WTO
and is a smaller ruling than the larger ruling in the first
place, it is all part and parcel of a trend in international and
regional trade agreements that gives priority to the interests
and the profits of big business, in this case large drug
companies, over the interests of the Canadian people and of
people all around the world.
Look at the struggle that was fortunately just won in South
Africa where the drug companies invoked their patent rights to
prevent the distribution of medicines that treated the disease of
AIDS.
While I am at it, I asked a question in the House not so long
ago. It had to do with emerging therapies and treatments related
to gene therapies. I asked the Minister of Health what the
government would do.
There are many people in the medical community who are worried
that the same thing that has been done with drugs by the kinds of
things we are debating today will be done with these gene
therapies, and that some time in the future any time we use a
particular gene therapy we will have to pay a royalty to some big
drug company that invented that gene therapy in the first place.
This will become another burden on our health care system. It
will become another argument for privatization, more private
sector money and more user fees.
However I asked the question of the Minister of Health, and for
me this was very symbolic, because I thought it was a health
issue. I thought that distributing cures, therapies and
medicines is something over which the Minister of Health ought to
have some kind of ultimate authority.
Who rose in his place to answer my question or should I say who
rose in his place to not answer my question? It was the Minister
of Industry.
1055
I am not surprised that I did not get an answer. I suppose I
should not have been surprised that it was the Minister of
Industry who got up and said that it was a very interesting
question, blah, blah, blah. The fact that the government
sees this as an industrial question really had already answered
my question.
This is a new territory. It is fine if the Liberals wanted to
say that perhaps drugs are history and maybe it should be dealt
with by the WTO, but there is a whole new area that they must
stand fast on, and that is to not allow these new gene therapies
to be taken over by the philosophy that they are private or
corporate property and should be distributed on the basis of what
is in the best interests of the profit margins of the companies
involved. They could take a stand there if they did not want to
go back and rewrite their own history. They are not even willing
to do that. They see it as an industrial matter rather than a
health matter.
For all these reasons, we feel it is unfortunate that there
seems to be this consensus in the House, a consensus of which we
are not a part, and that this is something that is beyond
criticism. It reflects the political monoculture that has
developed in the House of Commons among the Bloc, the Alliance,
the Conservatives and the Liberals, all part of a seamless
apology for corporate interests, with only the NDP standing here
in our place saying that there has to be another way to look at
drugs, at health.
Is there no other way of looking at drugs and health that will
not put corporate interest first and people second? We believe
there is. We think we had that before the Conservatives and then
the Liberals moved to destroy the generic drug regime that we had
in place. We feel that we can have that again if we had
governments around the world that were willing to stand up to
corporate interest, instead of engaging in these acts of
self-inflicted powerlessness by which they give up the power that
they once had as governments to act in the public interest.
The governments give up their power to trade agreements. Then
when these trade agreements kick in years later and impose
certain conditions on them, they do not know what to do as they
are just living up to their international obligations. They may
be international obligations now, but they were political choices
at one time that governments made and that the people had at one
point but they no longer have.
We want a government that works for the day when those kinds of
political choices return to parliament and the Canadian people so
they can decide what kind of generic drug regime they want rather
than leaving it in the hands of trade bureaucrats at the WTO who
are lunching constantly with the drug manufacturers and not
lunching with the people whose health care system will be
drastically affected by their decisions.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to take
part in this debate lately. I was at the Standing Committee on
Industry, Science and Technology, which is studying other issues.
It will be impossible for me to make a long speech, of course,
but I have a few questions for my colleague from
Winnipeg—Transcona.
[English]
I understand the frustration of the member. Of course the
member will remember my work, not only in the House of Commons as
a member who was elected in 1993, but also my role in 1995 on the
Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations when I
single-handedly attempted to bring down the notice of compliance,
which was not part and parcel of what the House of Commons had
voted for, and the manner in which the industry committee had
treated it in 1992 when we were dealing with Bill C-91.
I cannot very well go back and change what has occurred, but I
would like to ask two specific questions of the member on where I
believe the House of Commons can act with some force and
decisiveness.
1100
First, I will deal with the supreme court decision of 1998 which
dealt with patented medicines and notice of compliance
regulations. In that decision Justice Iacobucci said that
section 55 of the Patent Act, which allows drug companies to
claim an infringement and effectively maintain a 20 year patent
period before allowing generic companies to make cheaper copies
of new drugs, has been a question of contention.
The hon. justice suggested that
It would be manifestly unjust to
subject generic producers to such a draconian regime without at
least permitting them to protect themselves by reducing the
length of the injunction and initiating the NOC process as early
as possible.
I would like to hear the comments of the hon. member. This is
an issue we can address and it is certainly on the table in terms
of the bill. We know why Bill S-17 was concocted with respect to
WTO.
Second, and the hon. member has touched on it with respect to
South Africa, does he see an opportunity here for the government,
in concert with parliamentarians, to allow a return to compulsory
licensing to address the AIDS pandemic in Africa and other places
around the world? More specifically, could the government,
guided by CIDA, allow a return to compulsory licensing in order
to bring down drug costs? That would be the Canadian way.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the point the hon. member
has made about the supreme court opinion is well taken. I am
sorry he was not able to persuade his own government to include
something in the legislation to deal with that. Perhaps that is
what the hon. member has in mind for when the bill gets to
committee. Perhaps he will go to committee and argue for changes
or additions to the bill that reflect what the supreme court had
to say on the matter.
With respect to South Africa, I am not sure what the hon. member
means when he talks about acting through CIDA to return
compulsory licensing. However, I hope, and I am sure the drug
companies do not hope it but I do, that the backing down of
multinational drug companies with respect to South Africa and
their willingness to overlook or transcend their immediate
self-interest and patent rights to deal with the AIDS epidemic
will become not only a legal but a moral precedent.
Such a moral precedent could instruct the international
community, governments that participate in constructing
international agreements and citizens around the world that if a
sufficient moral argument is made we might someday reverse the
way various trade agreements have entrenched property rights over
the rights of the sick.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure today that I rise to speak to this important
legislation.
When applied to drug development and production, the whole
notion of intellectual property protection becomes a very
divisive issue that in many ways pits the right to patent
protection and commercial opportunities for Canadians and
Canadian pharmaceutical companies against the need for cost
effective access to these technologies.
1105
It is important to recognize that without investment in research
and development there would never be a debate on how best to
enable important pharmaceutical developments to reach people.
Whatever public policy we put forward regarding intellectual
property, patent protection and commercialization, we must be
careful not to reduce incentives to the point where we stifle the
development of leading edge drugs and treatments that ultimately
benefit all Canadians. At some point these technologies and
pharmaceuticals become commodities and the generic industry plays
a role in that as it occurs.
This piece of legislation, like so many others passed by the
Liberals, identifies and in some ways exemplifies the hypocrisy
that pervades the government. The government says the WTO ruling
has no significant or sustained impact on drug costs. It says
the impact of the ruling over the eight year horizon is
equivalent to less than 1% of pharmaceutical sales in a single
year. It says Canadians will continue to have access to
affordable drugs at prices below those of the U.S.
These arguments sound eerily similar to those presented by the
Conservative government in the early 1990s, arguments which were
rejected by the opposition Liberals. The current Minister of
Industry and self-promotion was the Liberal opposition's key
spokesperson against using patent and intellectual property
protection as a vehicle for promoting a more successful Canadian
pharmaceutical industry and greater economic growth.
This is a 180° shift in the position of the Liberals. It is
completely consistent with their inconsistency on free trade, the
GST and others issues. I will quote the colourful language used
at that time by the current Minister of Industry and
self-promotion. In the early 1990s he said:
The citizens will need more than generic drugs to recover from
the festering wounds which are about to be inflicted on the
exposed ankles of Canada's poorest citizens when the Minister
sinks his teeth in, past the bone, into the marrow and sucks the
lifeblood out of Canada's poorest citizens with Bill C-22.
That was the statement of the then Liberal opposition member who
is now the Minister of Industry and self-promotion. Was he
referring to the minister at the time or to himself? Could he
look into the future and see that he would become a minister and
eagerly embrace the policies he vociferously opposed in
opposition?
The Minister of Industry has stated on several occasions, and
most recently at an economic conference in Davos, that he was
wrong about the policies he espoused and opposed while in
opposition and that the Conservative Party had been right.
Perhaps through action he is now making the same admission.
1110
It is in some ways annoying and upsetting for Conservatives to
see Liberals embrace policies they had opposed in opposition and
then take credit for the results. However we would prefer that
they steal Conservative policies and take credit for the results
than implement their own policies, which could in the long term
have a far more negative impact on the country.
While it is important to point out their hypocrisy on these
issues it is also important to credit them with extraordinary
intellectual flexibility. They are at least intelligent enough
to swallow themselves whole and recognize that some policies
introduced by the previous government have made their lives a
heck of a lot easier.
Woody Allen once said that 80% of life is just showing up. For
seven years the government has done just that but for probably
closer to 90%. For the Prime Minister it is probably 95%. I am
not talking about golf; I am talking about governing.
We must walk a fine line. We must provide enough patent
protection to allow the pharmaceutical industry and the emerging
biotech industry to grow and prosper and develop new technologies
which have such potential for the future of humankind. However
we must also ensure that new medicines and pharmaceuticals reach
the public in the most cost effective and timely way. It is a
difficult balance to maintain.
Our current patent protection in Canada by and large strikes a
reasonable balance. Our policy is not working badly and has
created economic growth in the leading edge, knowledge based
industries of pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. That being the
case, we should be looking at ways to create a more effective
balance between the two policy priorities.
The Economist magazine about three years ago published a
study conducted in the U.K. about a policy which could balance
the need for patent protection with the importance of getting
pharmaceuticals into the hands of those who need them in the most
cost effective way.
It involved an auctioning process whereby when pharmaceutical
companies announced new drugs or medical treatments governments
would have an opportunity to bid on them. Governments would of
course pay a significant price for the privilege by recognizing
the public good of making pharmaceuticals more widely available.
They would then make them available to the generics in order to
provide lower cost access to the consumer.
1115
We should at least consider doing it that way or investigate the
matter as part of the debate in order to balance patent
protection and economic opportunities for pharmaceutical
companies and biotech companies while making these new
pharmaceuticals available more expeditiously to the public. We
should be engaging in a debate that would find ways to bring
these two divergent interests together in a more realistic way.
The other aspect we have to consider is the emergence of
Canada's biotechnology sector. Around the world biotechnology is
one of the key components of information technology within the
knowledge based industries, which are becoming so important to
our global competitiveness.
Canada has demonstrated some significant strengths on the
biotech side which capitalizes on our post-secondary university
infrastructure. In Nova Scotia we have 11 degree granting
institutions. Those universities, which were at one point seen
as a cost, are now in a knowledge based economy and seen as an
asset.
If members looked at the symbiotic relationship between the
small biotech companies and the big pharmaceutical companies,
they would recognize that this is not simply an argument about
big business and big pharmaceutical companies versus consumers.
The notion that only the big pharmaceutical companies benefit
from patent protection is a specious argument.
If we were to reduce patent protection and take an aggressive
approach that would reduce the incentives for pharmaceutical
companies to develop new drugs and treatments, we would be
significantly hurting the biotech companies. They are, by and
large, small companies and involve our post-secondary
institutions across the country. We must be very careful not to
do something from a political perspective that would have a
negative impact on Canada's competitiveness in biotechnology.
We must also consider a second argument. How do we get new
drugs or pharmaceuticals into the hands of Canadians faster? If
we cannot ensure an environment within which those new
technologies can be developed in the first place, the second
discussion is a moot one. It would be a terrible step backward
for the government to reduce, in any way, shape or form, the
incentives we have in place to encourage the leading edge
development of new pharmaceuticals and new advancements in
biotechnology.
Some provinces have been more successful than others in terms of
creating a critical mass of activities in these areas. This is
one of the areas where significant growth can be achieved in the
future both on the biotech side and in pharmaceuticals. We must
focus on our medical schools and our undergraduate programs in
terms of science and research.
I am pleased to see that the government has in fact recognized
the error of its ways in the past. It has embraced and continues
to support and foster Progressive Conservative policies with the
introduction of this legislation.
I hope we will have an opportunity in the future to discuss some
of the other alternatives that could balance more effectively the
needs of consumers and patients. It is important to create a
greater level of commercialization, intellectual property
protection and opportunities in Canada.
1120
The government has not been as creative as it might have been in
studying more carefully some of the alternatives that are
available in terms of moving forward in a more innovative way in
that regard.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was interested in the member's comments about trying
to find the balance between consumers and patents as well as the
need to ensure that Canada remains competitive globally from the
perspective and interest of intellectual property.
I too am somewhat confounded by how we have changed over the
past few years. I was also interested to hear many of the
comments made by his Conservative colleagues in the Senate who
also have demonstrated a rather interesting perspective that is
far different from the enthusiasm that was expressed by his party
and his colleagues. Perhaps they are more sensitive now because
of their age, being at the point where they may have to use some
of these therapies and drugs.
Since the hon. member will be sitting on the industry committee
with me, will he take some of those enlightening comments from
his Senate colleagues to the committee? His Conservative
colleagues in the Senate have sent a number of caution flags,
particularly in the area of infringement.
Infringement goes well beyond Canada's obligations to the WTO
and beyond the question of honouring a lengthy drug patent regime
that is competitive by any international standard. Will he speak
in the industry committee and in the House about the need to
ensure that evidence brought forward on the basis of a claim of
infringement be not based on any prima facie evidence that has to
be brought before court? Will the hon. member raise that issue
and try to advocate it? The opportunity to do that is now with
Bill S-17.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the senators in our
national caucus have advanced some important ideas on the
legislation. Certainly we should be discussing some of them in
the industry committee.
I would argue that some of our senators' aversions to stronger
patent protection has very little to do with their age. The fact
is that once one is in the Senate aging ceases to a considerable
extent and the quality of life issues there help preserve mental
acuity, health and life for a lot longer. The differences in age
between some of our senators and some of the members of our
elected caucus really do not play into this in real terms.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I compliment my friend for his
eloquent speech. I would like his response to a very important
issue dealing with access to essential medication in developing
countries. This was brought up by the NDP and it is an important
issue.
We just saw the recent court battle in South Africa over access
to anti-HIV medications. HIV is one of a series of diseases
plaguing developing countries for which there are very simple,
cheap and easily distributed drugs that could have a widespread
and positive effect on the lives of these people. The research
based pharmaceutical companies have a program that enables
developing countries to get access, but much more has to be done.
What can be done to enable Canada, perhaps CIDA, to work in
partnership with the research based pharmaceutical companies and
the generic companies in order to provide access in developing
countries to essential, cheap medications that can have a
profound effect on some of the terrible scourges that plague
these countries, such as TB, kala azar, river blindness and
malaria?
1125
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the member has identified
an area of public interest and public good that is
extraordinarily important. It is the availability of these
pharmaceuticals in developing countries where the need is so
great.
We have to find ways to balance the profit motivation of
research based pharmaceuticals with the public good of having the
drugs available to people in more cost effective and timely ways.
That is where government can play a role. If we look at the long
term cost of treatment with leading edge pharmaceuticals versus
not doing anything at all, it is a better investment to treat
them. The member, as a physician who has worked in developing
countries, is absolutely right in suggesting that CIDA could play
a role.
The governments of Canada, provincial and federal, could work
together to play a role in ensuring that the profit motivation is
not weakened for the research based pharmaceuticals to develop
the new technologies. Developing new drugs is a lot like mineral
exploration. A lot of holes are dug before hitting a vein of
minerals. No pun intended on the vein.
Drug research is expensive and not all research initiatives
actually yield results. We should not do anything to reduce the
financial incentives that create opportunities in biotechnologies
and pharmaceuticals but we should be addressing in a more
innovative way the question of what role government has in
ensuring the public good and by facilitating the public's access
to the drugs in a cost effective and timely manner.
I proposed for consideration the notion of having governments
purchase the technologies through an option process once the
technologies are developed. This is similar to a proposal
published in the Economist about three years ago. There
was a study done on it and it is one area of debate that we
should consider and be engaged in. It would be a way to balance
the profit motivation of private interests to ensure that we
continue to develop the leading edge pharmaceuticals that we
need.
It would also ensure that governments have a role in delivering
new technologies and pharmaceuticals to the public whether they
be here or in developing countries where the need, as the hon.
member suggested, is absolutely critical. We can make strong
arguments in favour of a government role on the second part of
the issue. The priority should be, once the drugs are developed,
to get the drugs to the people who need them the most whether
they are in our country or in the developing world.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have to say that the member speaks this much in caucus as well.
He rambles and goes on and on. However, he does have an awful
lot of intelligent things to say. I would like to make two
comments and have the hon. member for Kings—Hants respond.
He gave a scathing critique on the Minister of Industry
regarding his flip flop on his position respecting the
legislation. Does the member believe that the Minister of
Industry has actually had a philosophical mindset change, that he
now embraces the legislation, or does he see it as a bit of
political theatrics on the part of the minister? I hope he can
answer that.
The member talked about the need for huge capital investment in
research and development.
If the bill is not approved, is it his opinion that a lot of the
research and development dollars that are in this country now
would flee the country if companies did not have the patent
protection that would be in place through this proposed
legislation?
1130
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, when the whip of your
party says something nasty about you in this place, you are
really limited in terms of your response. Therefore I guess I
will not even talk about the first part of that question and
comment.
On the political question about the current Minister of Industry
and self-promotion, I would argue that for the individual to have
had a philosophical change in mindset would, first, require a
philosophy and, second, a mind. I have not seen a tremendous
degree of evidence in support of either.
In terms of capital investment, I fear that if we reduce the
incentives for leading edge, or in this case bleeding edge,
development of pharmaceuticals and biotech in Canada, we will
reduce and drive the much needed capital and investment from
Canada. It is not just taxes that redistribute investment. It
is also regulations, particularly in the areas of intellectual
property and knowledge based economies.
I think the hon. member is absolutely right. We would be taking
a huge risk of losing a lot of that investment, productivity,
growth and opportunity for Canadians.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to take part in today's debate on Bill S-17, an act to
amend the Patent Act. The objective of the bill is clearly to
change our patent legislation in light of two recent WTO rulings.
The first ruling relates to the duration of patents before
October 1, 1989, and the second concerns the provisions of the
act on storage.
In 1987, several important changes were made to the Patent Act.
The duration of patent protection went from 17 years after patent
registration to 20 years after the filing of the patent
application. That change came into effect on October 1, 1989.
Before the Uruguay round, multilateral trade negotiations on
GATT did not cover intellectual property rights. The Uruguay
round, which gave birth to the WTO, also produced the agreement
on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights, which
contains certain provisions on patent protection. Section 33, for
example, says that the protection duration must not be less than
20 years from the date the patent application was filed.
As a matter of fact, in 1992 the federal government undertook to
amend the Patent Act by introducing in the House of Commons Bill
C-91, an act to amend the Patent Act, 1992. This bill eliminated
compulsory licensing for drugs. Compulsory licensing had been set
up under the act. It authorized the licence owner, and only him,
to produce, use and sell a patented invention before the patent
expired.
This bill also created two exceptions to infringement of patent,
a rule under which anyone who produced, used or sold a product
protected by a valid patent without the consent of the patent
owner could be sued for infringement of patent, by authorizing
the use of a patent for certain purposes before it expired.
1135
I would like to provide members of the House with some
background information. At the end of 1997, the European Union
asked Canada to hold consultations as part of the dispute
settlement procedures of the WTO, on the one hand because of the
protection provided to pharmaceutical inventions under Patent
Act, and on the other because of Canada's obligations under the
TRIPS agreement.
Specifically, the European Union was concerned about the
exceptions regarding regulatory approval and storage. In early
1999, the WTO created a special panel mandated to review the
European Union challenge to these two exceptions under the
agreement, with regard to intellectual property rights as they
related to trade.
The European Union argued in this regard that the Patent Act and
the regulations authorizing protection and storage of drugs
without the consent of the owners of the patent during the six
months prior to its expiry—this is section 55.2(2)—was an
infringement of Canada's obligations under the TRIPS
agreement—namely sections 28.1 and 33.1.
The European Union also argued that by applying to drug patent
owners a less generous treatment than for other technological
areas, Canada had ignored its obligations under section 27.1 of
the TRIPS agreement, which provides for the granting of patents
and the enjoyment of patent rights without discrimination based
on technology.
On this occasion, the European Union also indicated that the
provisions of section 55.2(1) of the Patent Act authorizing a
third party, without the consent of the patent holder, to use a
patented invention during the term of the patent, in order to
obtain regulatory approval for the sale of an equivalent product
after the expiry of the patent, violated the provisions of
section 28.1 of the agreement on TRIPS.
The WTO struck a special panel, which backed the European Union
as far as the exception relating to storage contained in section
55.2(2) of the Patent Act was concerned, deeming it to be
incompatible with Canada's obligations under section 4 of the
agreement on TRIPS.
Canada was to implement the panel's decision concerning the
exception relating to storage by October 7, 2000 at the latest.
The manufacturing and storage of patented medicines regulations
were revoked in accordance with this decision.
In September 1999, a special WTO panel was struck to address a
claim by the United States that the protected period conferred by
a Canadian patent as the result of an application filed prior to
October 1, 1989 was incompatible with the obligations under the
agreement on TRIPS. The same thing is happening today with the
United States, as in the example of the softwood lumber agreement.
According to the United States, under the agreement, the
protection conferred by a patent is for a minimum of 20 years
from the date the application was filed. Patents granted in
connection with applications filed prior to October 1, 1989,
those granted under the old legislation, with a duration of 17
years from date of issue, would therefore be contrary to the
agreement on TRIPS, if that period of 17 years from date of issue
is shorter less than 20 years from date of filing.
This argument applied to patents under the old legislation that
were issued within three years of the date of filing.
1140
As a result of the position the United States has stated, Canada
maintained that the patents granted under the old act enjoyed
essentially the same protection as those granted under the new
legislation, and that the provisions of the TRIPS agreement on
the term of protection did not apply to patents granted before
the coming into effect of the agreement.
In October 2000, the WTO ruled in favour of the United States.
It felt that the term of protection for patents granted under the
old act was not compatible with the TRIPS agreement in the case
of patents granted during the three years following the date that
the request was made. I am referring to section 5.
Bill S-17 would amend the Patent Act to comply with the
rulings issued by the WTO following the challenges by the
Europeans and the Americans concerning certain provisions of the
act.
The Bloc Quebecois supports these changes. It is clear that the
protection of intellectual property must go along with
technological and pharmaceutical advances.
However, it is unfortunate that Canada had to appear twice
before the WTO's tribunal to solve this dispute, which is, after
all, a minor one. There are much more fundamental issues with
which the tribunal should be dealing.
I am thinking, among others, of the lumber issue where, even
after registering several victories, Canada literally caved in to
the Americans by imposing quotas on Canadian and Quebec lumber
producers. The agreement on softwood lumber expired on March 31
and we could again find ourselves before the WTO's tribunal,
which will have to deal with this problem for the fourth time.
Needless to say, this is a critical issue for our lumber
producing regions.
The Minister for International Trade ought to stand up to the
Americans, in my opinion. Someone should give him something to
make him strong enough to tell the Americans that the only
possible solution, in the short and the long term, is a return to
full free trade.
I will conclude by saying that the protection Canada must
provide to researchers regarding their inventions must comply
with international agreements. However, Canada could go even
further, since it is lagging behind the United States and the
European Union. Nevertheless, I will be pleased to support this
bill.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am very happy to speak after my hon. colleague from Jonquière
who, as we know, has a profound interest in consumers and
people.
I was saying to my colleague, the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, who has been, in our party and to some
extent in this parliament, a leader as far as the globalization
issue is concerned, that if we were looking for an example of
globalization affecting the national sovereignty of a state, we
could take this debate.
Let me explain. Canada signed a number of World Trade
Organization, WTO, agreements, including one on the protection of
intellectual property rights and trade. As we can understand,
patents are linked to intellectual property. A patent is what
somebody who has developed an invention applies for in order to
have exclusivity for a number of years.
About a year ago, the WTO handed down a ruling concerning
Canadian patents. This ruling followed a challenge by the United
States about some form of unfair competition. The mechanisms in
place within the WTO have played their role. There are appeal
mechanisms.
There are many references to these in the bill. My hon.
colleague from Jonquière probably mentioned it already. The bill
refers to the dispute settlement body, or DSB, of the WTO.
1145
The dispute settlement body gave a ruling that was not in
Canada's favour. Two pieces of legislation were passed, Bill
C-22 and another law we reviewed more recently, four years ago.
The Canadian Patent Act provides for a five year review.
There are two types of patents. The patents that existed prior
to 1986 are protected for 17 years. Those that date from after
1986 are protected for 20 years, under the latest legislation we
have passed. I was a member of the committee reviewing the law,
with the member for Témiscamingue, whose unfailing devotion to
the brand name drug industry is well known.
The ruling was given. It came out that there are two types
of patent in Canada: those protected for 17 years and those
protected for 20 years. This was seen to be inconsistent with a
specific treaty signed under the WTO, the agreement on
trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights.
Arbitration followed, with the Americans calling for binding
arbitration. I hope the government House leader is listening,
because I read the entire defence produced by the Government of
Canada. There was doubt as to Canada's ability to produce its
legislation within a year, because it said it was not sure of
having a parliamentary majority.
That made me laugh.
I told myself “We are now giving the opposition a power that it
is usually not entitled to in other circumstances”. Anyway, the
binding arbitration requested and obtained by the United States
forces Canada to change the Canadian legislation by next August.
The government has no other choice but to change the legislation.
As the member for Lac-Saint-Jean said, that is when
globalization is impacting on us as parliamentarians. We have not
freely decided to change the legislation, quite the opposite.
When Canada set up the five year revision of the Patent Act in
the industry committee, it had not chosen to make such a change.
We have to recognize that globalization curtails parliamentary
sovereignty.
There are of course settlement mechanisms. In this case we lost,
but in others we win, and I accept that. I am not questioning the
free trade agreement. That is not the point at all, but we have to
understand the reality. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean raised the
issue of MPs' privileges in the context of globalization. I am
sure that when he addresses the issue in the future, he will give
the example of the Patent Act.
I understand fully the whole issue of the research on brand name
drugs as far as Quebec is concerned. There are two main types of
research being conducted on drugs. There is research on brand
name drugs. It involves cycles of up to five or ten years. The
researchers working on brand name drugs were telling us that for
each drug produced, marketed and authorized by Health Canada, the
research cycle can cost up to $170 million.
Quebec excels in the area of brand name drugs. It is one of its
industrial clusters.
Another facet of this reality, if I can call it that, is the
research on generic drugs, that part of research which takes the
molecule once it exists and copies it according to very specific
rules.
I hope that in the coming years we as parliamentarians will
have a debate on the cost of drugs. I support wholeheartedly the
principle of a research infrastructure for brand name drugs. I
understand that when one invests $170 or $200 million, one
expects a return on that investment; it is normal. However, I
hope that we will also take the consumer into account.
In the future, it will not suffice to ask ourselves as
parliamentarians if we have an adequate research infrastructure.
Whether or not the research infrastructure is adequate, if the
drugs are not available to the consumers, we ought to be
concerned and raise the questions.
1150
This morning, I met with representatives of the generic drug
industry. People know how I am. When people ask for a meeting, I
always say yes. That is the way I am. I think parliamentarians
should make themselves available. Therefore this morning I had
the pleasure of meeting representatives of the generic drugs
industry.
I told them “This is not the right time to raise this issue. I
believe that there must be a debate on the cost of drugs and that
we must ask ourselves if we did not go too far in the protection
provided to patent drugs. What should we do about generic drugs,
notably with respect to the rules of procedural equity?” In this
regard, the supreme court has handed down some rulings.
Once again, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the need to set up a
strong research infrastructure and to make patent drugs one of
Quebec's major industrial clusters. Our position on this remains
unchanged.
However, in the next few years we will also have to think about
access to drugs. When I met the representatives of the generic
drug industry, I told them “You would be making a serious
strategic mistake if you raised the issue of the regulatory
framework authorizing a notice of compliance”. That is not the
way to go.
With a notice of compliance, as we know, when an industry makes
the slightest allegation of patent infringement, we can interrupt
the process for 24 months, during which the generic drug industry
cannot sell the drug.
However, the issue here is a WTO ruling. In other words, even if
there were not, in Canada, a debate between generic drugs and
patent drugs, Bill S-17 would still be before us, because the WTO
has handed down a ruling.
This is binding arbitration, and in fact Canada has until August
2001 to raise these issues.
As parliamentarians, we have missed an opportunity to raise an
important issue. When the national forum on health tabled its
report in 1997, it was already recommending dealing with the
issue of access to drugs. As we speak, six provinces have created
working groups on the reorganization of the health care system.
Of course, wherever we are—the NDP whip knows this—all the
provinces are debating the reorganization of health care. This is
understandable. This is the first time in the history of mankind
that we are no longer talking about the old but the very old.
Let us take the hon. member for Jonquière as an example. She
does not smoke, she does not drink, she takes care of her health.
If everything goes well in her life, if she does not have too
much stress because of her colleagues, she has an excellent
chance of living until the age of 100. This is the reality.
Today, it is not uncommon in our communities for people to live
to be quite old, and women live longer than men.
Why do women live longer than men? Because women are more in
touch with their emotions. Women are more balanced when it comes
to life and life's great values. Mr. Speaker, women will live
longer than men, and I know you will personally be glad for this.
We have missed an opportunity that we will have to create in
the next years, to deal with access to drugs.
What services or range of services do we want to provide to our
fellow citizens? How will we organize our health system? I
sometimes have the opportunity to meet with medical association
representatives and hospital directors, and I wonder if we are
all aware of which budget item uses up most of the hospitals'
resources. It is drugs. This is understandable. People live
longer, but they also live longer with disabilities. People
can be on medication for longer periods of time than ever before.
Because of this, a question arises: do we want to stay with the
same process of covered drug lists that we have at present, which
are such a drain on government budgets, particularly provincial
governments? After all, they are the ones who have to reimburse
drug costs.
1155
Let me give members some statistics to think about. Out of 72
new drugs approved by the Quebec government last year, more than
50 were brand name drugs. By comparison, I think Ontario
authorized some 40 new drugs. The number is approximate and
just gives an idea of what is involved. Only ten were brand
name drugs. Ontario, our next door neighbour, for the same
available drugs, chose to approve fewer brand name drugs.
Of course, this raises questions. Again, the research
infrastructure is important.
Why would a pharmaceutical company do research at a cost of maybe
$175 million if it is copied by a competitor? Conversely, if
brand name drugs are so costly that whole segments of the
population cannot afford them, there is also a problem.
We see the balance that is needed and the debate that is coming.
However, Bill S-17 is not what should trigger the debate.
At the Standing Committee on Health, we are currently examining
the whole issue of human artificial reproduction technologies.
Once this debate is over in January 2002, however, I myself may
table a motion on the whole issue of access to drugs. I think
this issue is extremely important for us, as parliamentarians.
I would be tempted to stop here to let my colleagues debate the
issue, but let me say once again that this bill points to the
significant dilemma whereby the sovereignty of national states is
eroded. It is the dilemma that arises when an organization, a
multinational forum, has handed down a ruling that impacts on our
capacity as parliamentarians to make decisions. In the end, this
dilemma obviously impacts on the industry and then on consumers.
Bill S-17, as such, will not fundamentally change anything for
the industry.
I will give a few statistics the Minister of Industry has so
kindly made available, knowing that hon. members are just dying
to have such information. To give us some idea of the situation,
as of January 2001, the number of patents issued under the old
act was 138,000. Of that total, some 53,500 were protected for
less than 20 years. Another 85,300 had 20 year protection under
the latest provisions of the legislation we passed.
According to the people at Health Canada, the World Trade
Organization ruling will not have any lasting effects on drug
costs. The impact of the ruling over the next eight
years—understanding that patents without the 20 year protection
will end in 2009—will be minimal.
According to departmental officials, this will be the equivalent
in quantitative terms of less than 1% of one year's drug sales.
There is not, therefore, any risk and we must keep telling the
public they will continue to have access to affordable drugs
according to the letter of Bill S-17.
I would like my colleagues to know that one of the things that
makes our drug licensing system original is the fact that we have
created a regulatory body called the Patented Medicine Prices
Review Board. Since the Progressive Conservatives brought in the
Patent Act, this regulatory body has been in place to monitor the
pricing structure of drugs.
1200
A series of criteria is taken into account, and there is a
series of drugs, drug A, B or C. There is a controversy. Some,
like the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, in its eighth
report released in 1995, contend that, of the new drugs
introduced onto the market, only 2.7% really have any new
therapeutic value.
That said, the average cost of drugs must still be kept in mind.
Drugs are too expensive—we agree on this—and we must put the
consumer at the heart of our concerns. Yet when we compare
ourselves with the United States, and that is what the Patented
Medicine Prices Review Board found, the cost of patented
medicines in Canada is, on average, 40% lower than in the United
States.
A formula of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has given
us an advantage we may rightly be proud of. Despite the fact
that a debate needs to be held on access to drugs, still with the
consumer at the heart of our concerns, when we compare ourselves
with a country like the United States—the comparison is
relevant, because we are North Americans and there are a number of
subsidiaries in Canada, whose head offices are of course in the
United states—the cost of drugs is 40% lower here than it is in
the U.S.
I would stop there, hoping that the debate is held and that we
may always keep the best interest of consumers in mind and the
need for Quebec, whose economic dynamism is a matter of record,
to hold on to what it has done for a research infrastructure in
connection with brand name drugs.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly the vote is deferred
until Monday, May 14, at the end of government orders.
* * *
1205
CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
Hon. Elinor Caplan (for the Minister of Industry) moved
that Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations
Act and the Canada Cooperatives Act and to amend other acts, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to have
this opportunity to begin second reading debate on Bill S-11, the
Canada Business Corporations Act and the Canada Cooperatives Act,
and to say a few words about this piece of legislation. I am
sure all members of the House will agree this is a fundamental
issue to the continued success of Canadian federally incorporated
companies.
The amendments and improvements found in Bill S-11 would further
the ability of businesses, investors, shareholders and
co-operative members to be in a position to respond quickly and
creatively to rapid developments in the global marketplace. They
would be better positioned, if parliament provided them with the
legal rules of the game that are sound, fair, efficient,
consistent and, just as important, flexible.
Each Canadian business, no matter how small, should be given the
right legal tools and legal framework to fully develop its
marketplace opportunities. Bill S-11 intends to provide for
federally incorporated businesses.
In a ranking of just the top 500 companies in Canada, federally
incorporated companies account for revenues in excess of half a
trillion dollars. The stakes, as we can see, are high, high for
these companies and indeed high for our country.
It is important that hon. members be aware of the lengths to
which the government has gone over the past seven years to make
sure that Bill S-11 is the result of the widest possible
consultation and scrutiny. As a result of this, we have before
us legislation that will meet the current and evolving needs of
business for many years to come.
Let me point out that in 1994 Industry Canada held initial
consultations on corporate law reform and subsequently issued
nine discussion papers. This was followed by cross country
consultations to discuss the policy recommendations contained in
those discussion papers. At the same time, the Senate banking,
trade and commerce committee held its own
hearings in cities right across Canada.
Bill S-11 was originally introduced in the other place as Bill
S-19. During the last parliament its banking, trade and commerce
committee heard from numerous witnesses. When the bill was
reintroduced as Bill S-11, the committee held further meetings
and heard from additional witnesses. More recently in its
studies of Bill S-19 and Bill S-11, the Senate committee held two
rounds of hearings as well, one in the year 2000 and one this
year. The testimony of the expert witnesses resulted in a number
of amendments that have significantly improved the legislation.
The Senate study stage was taken into account and, based on this,
a number of amendments to the original draft legislation were
adopted.
I want to take this opportunity right now to thank all the
interveners who have assisted the government over the years and
the members of the committee, particularly Senator Kirby, who was
the former chair of the committee and Senator Kolber, the current
chair of the committee.
The Canada Business Corporations Act is the principal federal
corporate law in Canada. It and the Canada Cooperatives Act are
framework laws that establish basic rules for corporate
governance, setting out the rights and obligations of directors,
officers, shareholders and co-operative members.
These acts are not overly regulatory. They allow business
corporations and co-operatives the flexibility to organize their
affairs within a sound legislative structure. They establish the
recourse available to parties in the event of unlawful conduct.
They are also self-enforcing, since disputes are largely settled
through civil action rather than through regulatory enforcement.
At this point I would also like to emphasize that although most
of my remarks today will refer specifically to the CBCA, many of
the provisions in the bill would also apply to the Canada
Cooperatives Act, which governs federally incorporated
co-operatives.
Hon. members may recall that a new Canada Cooperatives Act was
passed by parliament in 1998 and came into force on December 31,
1999. The bill would ensure that modifications to the CBCA,
where they were equally valid for co-operatives, would be
reflected in the Canada Cooperatives Act.
1210
The Canada Business Corporations Act, which is the main focus of
Bill S-11, has not been amended for the last 26 years. The
amendments in Bill S-11 would update and modernize four core
elements of the existing legislation.
First, the bill would expand the rights of shareholders to
communicate with one another and would encourage more shareholder
participation in corporate decisions.
Second, the bill would help eliminate barriers to
competitiveness, so that Canadian corporations could become more
effective global players. At the same time, it would help to
attract international companies to establish a base in Canada for
their international operations.
Third, Bill S-11 would more reasonably define corporate
responsibilities for the liabilities of directors, officers and
shareholders. This would promote fairness and reasonable risk
taking, which is a necessity for growth and productivity in the
global economic environment that we have today.
Finally, the bill would eliminate duplication of regulation. We
have reason to be proud of the Canada Business Corporations Act.
It is not just that it serves the country well. Canada is
already recognized by countries around the world as having a
leading edge corporate statute, one that links prosperity with
sound, balanced rules for corporate governance.
It also helps set standards of legal, predictable, fair and
accountable business practices in other countries that have come
here for advice on setting up their own corporate governance
frameworks.
The Canada Business Corporations Act is very sound legislation
that has provided the legal framework for conducting business
over the last quarter century. The reforms to the existing act
would modernize and strengthen this legal framework.
The opportunities out there are great for our country. However
one thing we have to do is equip our fellow Canadians with the
ground rules that only government can provide. The Canadian
entrepreneurs will provide the tools, the savvy and the
entrepreneurial spirit and skills to reach out for it.
In my closing remarks, the provisions in the bill are once again
representative of the fulfilment of many commitments we have made
in our red book. They go beyond the pledges of the red book, in
the economic statement last fall and in the Speech from the
Throne. In each of these government initiatives a commitment was
made to foster innovation and enhance the competitive advantages
of Canadian enterprises.
I urge all the members of the House to give speedy assent and
passage to this most important piece of legislation, this
marketplace framework legislation which, as I said earlier
in my remarks, will help position Canadian companies to compete
strongly internationally.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my speech, I ask the House for
unanimous consent to split my time with the hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
The Deputy Speaker: In this case of the Canadian
Alliance, the official opposition, it would have 40 minutes. Is
there unanimous consent that the 40 minutes will be split into
two blocks of 20 minutes evenly, give or take, but that it would
be a maximum of 40 minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. James Rajotte: Mr. Speaker, I love it when the House
gives unanimous consent. It gives me a warm feeling inside. I
rise today to speak on Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canada
Business Corporations Act and the Canada Cooperatives Act. This
is the first time since 1975 that the Canada Business
Corporations Act, otherwise known as CBCA, has been amended. Many
of these changes are long overdue.
Bill S-11 also contains amendments to the Canada Cooperatives
Act. It continues the reform process that recently led to a new
statute governing co-operatives, which came into force on
December 31, 1999.
1215
At that time, however, some issues required further consultation
and are now addressed in Bill S-11. For the most part the
changes to the CCA closely follow the amendments to the CBCA and
harmonize the rules governing co-operatives with key elements of
corporate law.
The CBCA is the main federal law governing corporations in
Canada, including large, medium and small enterprises. This act
sets out the legal and regulatory framework for more than 155,000
federally incorporated businesses. In Canada corporations have
the option of incorporating at the federal or the provincial
level. Almost half of the largest companies in Canada are
incorporated under the CBCA.
The previous act to amend the CBCA was tabled in the Senate
during the last session of parliament and was known as Bill S-19.
The bill was before the Senate committee on banking, trade and
commerce when it died on the order paper due to the federal
election. Nonetheless, the members of the Senate committee heard
from 35 witnesses between April and the end of June 2000 and they
should be commended for their work.
Bill S-11 is substantially the same as Bill S-19 but
incorporates recommendations suggested by stakeholders such as
the Canadian Bar Association, the coalition for CBCA reform, the
Canadian Co-operative Association and the task force of the
churches on corporate responsibility.
The amendments seek to modernize the Canada Business
Corporations Act in four areas by: first, recognizing the global
nature of the marketplace; second, clarifying the responsibility
of corporate directors and officers; third, reducing
federal-provincial duplication; and fourth, expanding shareholder
rights.
It is an immense understatement to say that business has changed
fundamentally since the mid-1970s and it is high time that the
Canada Business Corporations Act reflected the transformation to
the global economy. We support these changes in principle.
The CBCA currently requires that a majority of directors on a
federally incorporated board and on each committee be resident
Canadians. Canada is the only G-7 country that imposes such
antiquated residency requirements on its businesses.
Bill S-11 would reduce the residency requirement to 25% for
boards and entirely eliminate the requirement for board
committees. This change is long overdue and should help Canadian
companies compete as global players. However, I must say it is
characteristic of the Liberal government that sacred cow sectors
such as book publishing, telecommunications, transportation and
Petro-Canada would be exempt from this reduction. We question
the rationale as to why these businesses are not permitted to
enjoy the flexibility to appoint directors based on their
qualifications and not on where they live.
Another welcome change is the amendment that would allow foreign
subsidiaries of Canadian corporations to acquire shares in their
parent corporations under limited and clearly defined
circumstances. This is mainly for the purpose of acquiring or
merging with foreign corporations. These amendments will allow
Canadian federally incorporated companies to compete with foreign
multinationals while expanding globally.
With an eye to allowing directors to take appropriate risks in
their decision making, Bill S-11 would replace the good faith
reliance defence for directors with a due diligence one and would
allow corporations to pay for defence investigation costs.
To clarify responsibilities of corporate officers and directors,
Bill S-11 replaces the current joint and several liability regime
with one of modified proportionate liability. This change would
mean that every defendant found responsible for a financial loss
stemming from an error, omission or misstatement in financial
information would be liable only for the portion of the damages
that corresponds with his or her degree of responsibility.
However, joint and several liability would continue to apply in
cases of fraud and to designated categories of plaintiffs such as
the crown, charitable organizations, unsecured creditors and
small investors.
Bill S-11 also clarifies that when the directors' powers are
transferred to shareholders under a unanimous shareholders'
agreement, the associated liability and defences are also
transferred to shareholders. New shareholders who are not
informed that a unanimous shareholders' agreement was in place at
the time of their acquisition would be allowed to cancel the
transaction.
Bill S-11 seeks to end costly time consuming administrative and
legal burdens on federally incorporated businesses by limiting
conflicts between federal and provincial statutes and
regulations. Amendments would also modernize the wording of the
legislation to bring the CBCA up to date with technological and
other developments.
With respect to insider trading, Bill S-11 would repeal the
federal duplication of provincial insider filing requirements,
impose civil liability on persons who disclose insider
information, even if those persons did not participate in the
transaction, and increase the maximum fine from the current
$5,000 to $1 million.
1220
Bill S-11 would repeal the CBCA provisions for takeover bids and
would allow the comprehensive codes for the takeover bid
regulations under provincial securities laws to prevail.
The provisions restricting financial assistance to directors,
officers, employees and shareholders would be eliminated because
they have proven to be difficult to apply in practice. Since
directors approving financial assistance transactions are already
required to act in the best interests of the corporation, they
can be sued for failing to do so. This is safeguard enough.
Bill S-11 would allow for greater participation by small
shareholders in corporate decision making. It would do so by
relaxing the rules under which shareholders communicate among
themselves and allowing proxy solicitation to be done through
public broadcast or newspaper advertisement instead of by direct
mailings. The amendments would encourage corporations to employ
new technologies such as e-mail when communicating with
shareholders and when conducting shareholder meetings.
The legislation would also liberalize mechanisms for individual
shareholders to submit proposals as well as set minimum share
ownership and length of ownership thresholds required to submit a
proposal. The bill also aims to restrain management's ability to
block or refuse proposals from being considered.
Bill S-11 reflects the transformation of business since 1975
with respect to the global marketplace, the electronic revolution
and the rise of shareholder rights, as well as the necessity of
reducing federal-provincial regulatory redundancies.
The Canadian Alliance therefore supports in principle this
legislation. However we will be consulting with interested
parties to ensure that the changes in the bill are indeed
beneficial to Canadian business.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its tolerance
in allowing me to share the time with my colleague. Bill S-11,
an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and the
Canada Cooperatives Act and to amend other acts, is a good bill.
It is a bill that we support.
As my friend and colleague just mentioned, the CBCA has not been
amended since 1975. After consultation the government put
together a plan that will amend it in this bill. The CBCA is the
main federal law that governs corporations in Canada, including
large and small to medium sized businesses. In fact it governs
more than 155,000 businesses in total.
However, I wonder why the government has not taken it upon
itself to be more innovative and aggressive in trying to improve
the business climate in our country. We have heard over the past
week and a half that productivity in Canada has been declining
for years. That hits every single person in our country. Our
nation and the people in it are reliant on an environment in
which businesses can thrive in an effort to improve the health
and welfare of all Canadians and so we can also have jobs.
In our globalized economy we are laggards. We are falling
further behind. Why do we accept the fact that countries such as
New Zealand, Singapore, the United States, the United Kingdom and
Ireland have grown, prospered and thrived and have been more
productive than Canada? Canada is a nation and a country that
has overwhelming resources and a good workforce, a competent and
intelligent workforce, people who are willing to put their backs
into the country. As well, relatively speaking we have an
enormous amount of wealth in and above ground. Yet despite these
natural assets we are falling further behind.
Why do we accept the fact that our dollar has plummeted from the
70 cent range to 65 cents today? I believe it was at 73 cents
when the government took over in 1993. There is no end in sight
as analysts view our dollar as continuing to slide. Some make
the glib comment that this is okay because it strengthens our
ability to sell products abroad.
1225
That is true, but what does it do for those companies that are
reliant and dependent on the ability to import products? How can
they function properly and make their products? What does it do
for Canadians who travel abroad? It severely hamstrings them,
reduces their productivity and reduces their competitiveness.
We have to create a nimble, aggressive economy in Canada. The
government's responsibility is to enable Canadian companies to do
that. Its responsibility is to provide a climate of ingenuity
where Canadian companies can prosper, where they can compete with
and beat other countries from around the world.
We need strong fiscal and monetary policy. Why do we not have a
debt reduction strategy? Why do we accept that our national
debt sits at $560 billion? Perhaps the public watching today
would be very interested to know that the debt we are all saddled
with exceeds $1 trillion when we take in the debts accrued by the
provinces and crown corporations. That is $1 trillion that we
owe as a nation.
Why has the government not taken it upon itself to flatten the
tax system? Our complex and onerous tax system makes it very
difficult for most people to even do their own taxes. They have
to get a professional to do them. Why do we not simplify the tax
system?
Over the years my colleagues in the Alliance have repeatedly put
forth suggestions to flatten the tax system, to simplify the tax
system and to lower the tax structure so that individual
Canadians and businesses can have more money in their pockets.
Why does the government not have the same zeal for this as it has
for Bill S-11? Why does it not apply that zeal to improving the
structural aspects of our economy? Why does the government not
drop the GST to 5%? Why not make it comprehensive and have
single, one year reporting? Why have a system where private
companies must hire people to do their GST returns? It adds
costs to the ability of those firms to function properly.
Why do we not reduce payroll taxes, which in effect put just
another cost on top of the costs to do business and the costs to
Canadian consumers? Why do we not reduce personal taxes? When
personal and business taxes are reduced, what happens? The
economy improves, unemployment rates go down and, interestingly
enough, moneys coming into the public coffers increase.
I want to draw to the attention of the House the tale of two
provinces. I will compare my province of British Columbia to the
province of Ontario. The NDP has ruled in my province for the
last eight years or so. Thankfully its life will soon be
shortened. With the upcoming election on May 16 there will be a
new provincial government in my province, which I am sure will do
a much better job than the NDP has done.
Let us look at the objective statistics in a province that has
had high taxes, crushing rules and regulations and an environment
that basically told the private sector to go somewhere else
because it was not welcome in that province. Real per capita GDP
when the NDP was elected in my province was $367 greater than the
national average. After eight years of NDP rule, with its high
taxes, complex rules and regulations and choking union rules, the
actual decade ended with the real per capita GDP $3,471 lower,
while the rest of the country, in particular Ontario and Alberta,
experienced tremendous growth in real per capita GDP, 16.7% and
26% respectively. In regard to disposable income, which really
hits the individual consumer, when the NDP came into power the
real per capita disposable income was $743 greater than the
national average. Now it is $768 below the national average.
1230
It has plummeted nearly $1,500 during the period of high taxes,
complex rules and regulations, and an oppressive environment for
the private sector. That is what has happened to the money in
the pockets of citizens in my province.
The Conservative Party in Ontario on the other hand took over
from the regime of Bob Rae the mess of high taxes, complex rules
and regulations, and an oppressive environment in the private
sector. Since that time, with the lowering of taxes and the
removal of rules and regulations, 822,000 jobs were created; tax
revenues were up $15 billion; and Ontario's economy is expected
to grow 2.3% this year and 3.6% next year.
Interestingly the left wing tries to lambaste the so-called
heartless PCs in Ontario, but the fact is that 622,000 people in
the lowest socioeconomic group are not paying taxes now. The
same number of people in British Columbia find life more
difficult. They have less chance of being employed and a greater
chance of being on welfare. The amount of moneys and
opportunities accessible to them are less. Is that fair? Is
that a good environment to be in?
Everybody in the House, including the NDP, must see that having
high taxes and complex rules and regulations chokes off the
private sector. It harms people who are on welfare but who want
to work. It harms the people who are underemployed as well as
those who have talents and skills and want to use them to help
their families and be able to contribute to society. These are
the people who are hurt by left wing, socialist economic policies
that have choked the life out of the province of British Columbia
and out of Ontario prior to the PCs getting in.
Although education is a provincial responsibility, why does the
federal government not work with the provinces to develop
national standards? With people being forced to move, and
sometimes quite rapidly, why do their children not have the same
educational opportunities in all provinces? If national
standards were established children could be slotted in and have
similar educational opportunities.
We also have to expand and improve educational opportunities.
Why not look at private-public partnerships? Germany has taken
it upon itself to have a very innovative private-public
partnership. People are given apprenticeships in high school. It
has enabled people in high school and in university to develop
experience and skills that will benefit them and enable them to
be employable in high paying jobs. That is innovation. I urge
the federal government to sit down with its provincial
counterparts to accomplish that goal. They could have a very
useful and innovative meeting which would benefit all Canadians.
The government also needs to tackle the issue of loans. At the
present time access to post-secondary education is becoming the
purview of the rich. I would not be able to go to medical school
today. Statistics demonstrate that at the University of Western
Ontario the average family income has increased dramatically to
$80,000. Very few Canadian families make $80,000 a year. That
means that children of people making less money have far less
opportunity to gain access to professional faculties. Canadians
do not want that. They want to ensure equal opportunities based
on skill level, not based on the amount of money in their
pockets.
1235
We should also look at ways to decrease red tape. Red tape
chokes the living daylights out of the private sector. It is
easier for people to trade between Athens, Greece and London,
England than it is to trade between Halifax and Victoria. Members
should think about that. That is absolutely absurd. Why is it
easier for a business person in Europe to have trade facilitated
between two cities in Europe, which are separated by a
considerable amount of space, than it is within our own country?
The government has attempted in the past, and I do not know why
it has failed, to bring down trade barriers. It has simply
nibbled around the edges. The barriers to trade in our country
are a very real problem. It is very difficult to export the very
fine wines that are made in my province of British Columbia to
the rest of the country.
Why is it so difficult? Why do we have so many barriers for
individual producers and business people engaged in trade and
commerce within our own borders? We certainly pursue free
trade with vigour. Why does the government not pursue the
elimination of internal barriers to trade with as much zeal? That
is something the government should bring forth in this term. I
know it would find a great deal of support and constructive input
if it were to do that.
My colleagues have raised the issue of transportation and the
fact that our transportation arteries are falling apart. With
the benefit of our surplus a good investment would be for the
government to invest wisely in those structures which the private
sector cannot invest in. An investment in improving
transportation arteries within the country would be a wise
investment that would help commerce within our borders.
Good environmental policies are also required. We do not have
them. There are many good environmental policies, though, that
are not followed by the government. Time after time the
environment commissioner puts forth good, constructive solutions
and points the government in a direction that would improve our
environment. There are many good scientists and people with very
good ideas on how we can improve the environmental behaviour of
businesses. I encourage the government to use some of those
ideas.
The government needs to look at how our businesses operate
abroad. I encourage people to look at how the Export Development
Corporation, using taxpayer dollars, is funding companies that
are pillaging other countries through mining processes. They are
dumping tailings and poisoning rivers or engaging in the
rapacious destruction of hardwood forests in places like Papua
New Guinea, Borneo and Central America.
Why are we tolerating environmental destruction abroad when we
would never tolerate it in Canada? What is worse is that we are
using Canadian taxpayer money to fund corporations and companies
to do that.
The Canadian public would be appalled. I have been to the
island of Borneo and have seen pristine jungles being decimated
for palm oil plantation. I have driven for dozens and dozens of
kilometres through what was formerly jungle to get to the
interface between jungle and palm oil plantation. We have
recently discovered that a lot of large primates such as
orangutans are being decimated as a result of this destruction
and that Canadian companies supported by the government are
funding this behaviour. That is absolutely appalling.
I encourage the government to look at our aging population with
as much zeal as it is looking at Bill S-11, which would be very
beneficial. The population is aging. As a result, the relative
numbers of people working compared to those retiring will produce
a grave imbalance. No one is looking at that. This will have an
impact on our workforce, tax structure, government revenues,
social programs and health care system.
We know that we have a pension system. The public would be
interested to know that our pension system, the CPP, is
unsustainable. When it was put together the CPP architects knew
very clearly that decades from now it would collapse under its
own weight. There would be demands placed on it that could not
be met by the number of people in the workforce.
1240
Why does the government not look at something innovative such as
increasing the minimum age of retirement to age 70. This would
enable people to have a somewhat graded ability to access CPP. It
would also encourage them to be in the workforce, earn money, pay
taxes, be productive and be less of a drain on a CPP that would
otherwise collapse.
The government had to raise CPP premiums quite significantly
through a payroll tax. We see the imbalance in what is
happening. We have an aging population and an unsustainable CPP,
which forced the government to raise payroll taxes, depressed
productivity, put people out of work, and reduced government
revenues.
If the government were to look at what happened in Ontario where
taxes were lowered, it would see that revenues went up by $15
billion. Wherever taxes were lowered, whether in New Zealand,
Singapore or Europe, economies thrived and more money, not less,
went into the public coffers. This is not elemental; it is a
fact of life.
On the issue of immigration as it relates to the workforce
situation, we have a workforce crisis that will be exacerbated.
We need to take a critical look at our immigration policy. We
need to encourage and expand the number of independent immigrants
coming into the country as well as review the people who are on
the list and the skills required in our country.
This is Nursing Week in Canada. We have a crisis in nursing. We
will have a shortage of 112,000 nurses in the next 10 years as
our population ages and the demands on our health care system
increase. Nursing is not a required profession on the list of
professions that we are seeking. It is unimaginable that it is
not. We need nurses. That is just one of a number of
professions that we need which are not on the list of professions
required. I strongly encourage the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration to look at the list, revamp it and make it reflective
of the needs of the economy and industry today.
I would like to deal with the issue of right to work
legislation. It is a very contentious issue in the House and it
should not be. We need to look at the impact of right to work
legislation, at the international experience. Right to work
legislation gives the individual worker the right to be part of a
union or not. I strongly encourage the government to work with
its provincial counterparts to introduce right to work
legislation. It helps the worker and makes labour laws more
flexible. It unleashes and unshackles the private sector.
What has happened in countries where right to work legislation
has been in place is extraordinary. In the United States, in
those states where they have right to work legislation, the per
capita income of the worker has improved dramatically. It has
gone up about $3,000 per worker. Unemployment has dropped by 50%
and productivity is at 157%, whereas in areas where there has not
been right to work legislation it is hovering around 0%.
These extraordinary statistics demonstrate the need for right to
work legislation in our country today. If we bring it in workers
would have a greater chance of being employed and would have more
money in their pockets. The provinces would have more money
coming in. It would be a much healthier environment.
I encourage the government not to dismiss this out of hand but
to look at the facts. It should look at areas where the right to
work legislation has been put in place: the U.S., New Zealand,
Ireland and the United Kingdom. The facts support the notion
that right to work legislation improves the health and welfare of
the worker.
1245
Not having right to work legislation harms the most vulnerable
in our society. It gives them fewer opportunities to work, less
money in their pockets and worse working conditions. I would
encourage the government to work with the provinces on that.
In closing, I would encourage the government to look at having
tax free zones, tax free zones that have worked in Subick Bay in
the Philippines; in Raleigh, South Carolina; and in areas of
Ireland. If we had employer centres in Canada that were tax free
havens, they would be a major attraction for investment,
employment would go up and they would be magnets for innovation
and research and development.
In my speech I, as have many of my colleagues, have given the
government numerous innovative solutions. We support Bill S-11
but I would encourage the government to look at other more
complex issues it can actually tackle, issues that must be
addressed today if Canada is to become a nimble, aggressive
player on the world stage.
The failure of the government to address issues on taxes,
education, trade, barriers to trade, rules and regulations and
others, will result in a country that is punching far below the
belt. We do not need to do that. We can do better. I plead with
the government to follow our advice.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I will put my remarks in a context of globalization and
then speak about the data pertaining to this bill, one element in
particular that has a personal interest for me, that is, clause
137.
Parliamentarians and society in general are speaking more and
more about the social impacts of globalization. I applaud this,
because for many years now I have been hoping we would give more
thought to making globalization more human and to finding
possible solutions.
One of the results of increased interaction among states is
that trade is increasing, which means that competition
among corporations is also increasing. We have to remember that
corporations are profit oriented.
It is important to remember what kind of impact increasing
competition among corporations can have. In the past, a
corporation competed on local markets, with other Canadian
corporations. Nowadays, competition involves other countries.
Very often, the best companies in the world are competing against
one another. We see that this whole process does have an impact.
We see in the media, in the newspapers, how corporate
reactions are irrational. I would even go so far as to say that
corporations overreact, that they lose track of what they are
doing.
Given this increased competition, companies must act recklessly,
which is not the word that I want to use but the one that comes
to mind, and understandably so.
In the context of competition, having the best minds is a
critical advantage. In some areas, including in the new economy,
as it is called, one must have the brightest minds. A company
like Nortel or Microsoft will have a definite competitive edge if
it attracts the brightest minds.
Other companies in other sectors will lower their production
costs to make profits. It is interesting to look at the elements
that have an impact on production costs.
The first one is labour. If a company has more employees than
its competitor, it will tend to lay off some of these employees,
to streamline operations so as to be more competitive. This has a
huge impact on the workers who find themselves out of work.
1250
A competitive environment may also make companies exert pressure
to prevent salaries from increasing too much, if not to lower
them.
A solution for a company that is based in North America is to
build a plant in South America, or in countries where labour is
cheap. While the minimum wage in Canada is around $7 per hour, in
some countries that same $7 is the salary for one week or one day
of work.
One of the measures taken by businesses in this competitive
environment is to reduce production costs and, by the same token,
labour costs. Such a decision has an impact on society.
The environment and natural resources make up the other element
I want to mention. In order to increase their profits, some
companies may overexploit natural resources or have a tendency
to not respect environmental protection rules. If they do not
respect these rules, they may also be tempted to move part of
their production to countries where these rules are not as
strict.
I often give the example of a cheese producer in my riding who
recently told me that he had had to spend several hundreds of
thousands of dollars because he could no longer dump production
residues into the river behind his factory. Protecting the
environment costs money. However, I think that this is entirely
reasonable, because we must meet the goal of protecting the
environment.
Another advantage of competition is that certain companies will
try to pay as little tax as possible in order to lower their
production costs, thus putting pressure on western, and now
world, governments. These companies will lobby governments in
order to pay as little tax as possible, once again to lower
production costs.
This has repercussions. I think that one of the major effects
of global competition is tax competitiveness. In order to attract
investors, governments must lower their taxes so that companies
see an advantage in locating in a particular place and, if they
do not pay high taxes, their production costs will go down and
they will be more competitive.
Once again, this has repercussions, because governments will
forgo huge amounts of money. I give the following example: 50
years ago, 50% of federal government tax revenues came from large
corporations; today this has dropped to 13%. It is no surprise
that citizens have had it up to here with taxes. The tax burden
has shifted away from large corporations to individual citizens.
This is another repercussion.
Another thing we have seen recently is corporate mergers.
If you cannot beat your competitor, swallow it, buy it or sell
your own assets. Now we are witnessing an unprecedented
concentration of economic power through corporate mergers, hence
my concern. I wonder where this will end.
Is it like in Monopoly, where all players begin with the same
amount of money, then one player buys another and the game stops
when one of the players has the monopoly? I am not saying that it
will go that far, but for the time being I am concerned about
corporations becoming larger than countries and having sales
assets bigger than the national GNP of some countries.
My reason
for explaining these things, the impact of globalization—while
not being against globalization, of course, except that I have
some concerns which I am voicing here—is that this bill may
provide the means to humanize the behaviour of corporations.
In facing the challenges that we have to face, we must strive to
achieve the objective of democratizing globalization. I believe
we should do it on two levels. We must absolutely undertake to
democratize the decision processes of globalization, that is,
international bodies, the role of parliamentarians in
international agreements and in environmental agreements. This is
a great challenge, but this is not the subject of today's debate.
1255
Another element is the democratization of capital. At the
present time, there is a major change taking place in the role
big business plays in our economy. Take the pulp and paper
companies for instance.
In the past these were often owned by major financiers, rich
company owners who owned several plants and made sure, year in
and year out, that their plants remained functional and
cost effective, thereby maintaining and creating employment.
Today, we see that ownership has changed. Now we are the ones
owning these major multinational companies, not the major
financiers. How so? Through our pension and mutual funds.
I hope everyone will be able to enjoy a comfortable retirement
one day, with enough income to live on. Today it is the
investment funds that are financing retirement. Everyone
invests, ourselves included. Those who work for governments and
those who work in industry see part of their salary withheld for
a pension fund. The important thing is what happens to the money
in the pension funds. It is given to a portfolio manager
mandated to invest in businesses, here and elsewhere, whose
performance will add to the retirement fund so that we can have a
peaceful retirement at the end of our career, as I said.
This is a very worthy objective, but what has to be noted is the
fact that sometimes managers of pension funds invest in the
world's most competitive businesses. Why are they the most
competitive? They have what it takes to compete, which I
mentioned earlier.
The people here or watching, or we who are building up a
pension, may have their money invested perhaps in businesses that
do not reflect their values, businesses that perhaps do not
respect the environment or social rights. This is why pension
fund owners, like us, must pay attention, so we can say “No this
is not the way we want our money invested, since this is not in
keeping with our values”.
If all we can see is the objective of financial performance—God
knows that many people, when they pick up the paper, look
immediately to see how their stocks or mutual funds are doing,
and we can naturally hope for yields of 15%, 20%, 30% or even
40%—we should look to see how these businesses manage to have
such returns.
Sometimes, not always, but sometimes,
the yield may be the result of a highly productive business,
because they do business with the sweatshops in developing
countries where children are paid a dollar a day. This kind of
yield can also be produced by businesses that do not respect the
environment.
Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that an awareness, that
what I call a democratization of capital can emerge, so that we
can decide where our money will go, even though the return may
not be as good. If we put too much emphasis on competitiveness,
plant workers may be laid off. There will be economic and social
consequences locally, because our pension plan requires a higher
return than that which the company located next door can give.
This is not without consequences.
For this democratization of capital that we need, there is an
appropriate tool called shareholding activism. As I said, since
many of us have pension funds and these funds are invested in
companies, we are in effect the owners of these companies.
1300
This means that we have a say in the direction and the decisions
of these businesses. Of course we may wish that their sole
objective is the highest possible return. But if I find out that
my money is invested in a business that does not reflect my
values, I must be able to attend the annual shareholders meeting.
Shareholders must be able to make proposals to change the
company's focus and tell it “We think that you are headed in the
wrong direction. This is why we are submitting a proposal of a
social or environmental nature”.
I now come to the subject matter of the bill.
Before this bill, subsection 135(5) of the Canada Business
Corporations Act said that a corporation was not required to
comply with a shareholder proposal if, and I quote:
—it clearly appears that the proposal is submitted by the
shareholder primarily ... for the purpose of promoting general
economic, political, racial, religious, social or similar
causes;—
So it is environmental, but the corporation's board of directors
may reject this proposal.
As a stakeholder, through my pension fund, the mutual fund, I
should be able to do this. If a union, for example, decides to
attend the annual meeting of shareholders to say that the
business in which it has invested is cutting down too many trees,
is not respecting the environment, and is not respecting social
rights, it is the right of this union or of any other shareholder
to make a proposal to the annual meeting of shareholders calling
on the board of directors to change the behaviour of this
company.
Let us take the case of a company which we have heard about
recently, that of Talisman, which invests in the Sudan. Many
people say that the fact that Talisman is in the Sudan encourages
the civil war. If Talisman's shareholders go to the
shareholders' meeting and propose that the company get out of the
Sudan, because its presence benefits the military government,
this represents an important tool.
In the existing legislation, the board of directors is entitled
to reject this proposal of a social nature. The new legislation,
Bill S-11, does not contain this provision. This opens the door
to shareholder activism and means that we, as shareholders, would
be able to assume our responsibilities and do something about the
excesses of certain companies.
I see this as a hope for humanizing globalization, for
humanizing the behaviour of certain companies, but this should
be done only if there is a greater awareness. Workers who own
pension funds and invest in certain companies whose economic
behaviour is sometimes questionable need to be more aware.
Otherwise, the amendment in this bill will have been for nought.
That is why workers must absolutely make conscious choices
concerning their investments. This is like fair trade. A good
example of this is fair trade coffee. That coffee was first
marketed because people thought it was totally wrong to do
business with coffee companies which took advantage of farmers
down south.
A fair trade coffee network was established. It ensures that
producers get their fair share of the profits and that every link
in the economic chain benefits. Of course, that coffee is a bit
more expensive, but at least the consumer is making a political
choice when buying coffee that will not result in coffee
producers being exploited.
1305
For consumers, the act of buying is a political choice. Instead
of buying shoes from Nike, for example, a company that used to
take advantage of children, making them work for $1 a
day—although I am not sure whether it still does—if we decide
not to buy those shoes but rather to buy a different brand from
a company that abides by the international labour rules we are
making a political choice.
I think it is possible, through the choices we make as
consumers, to humanize globalization. That is one thing.
However, if you are alone, as one single consumer, you have very
little weight.
The manager of a retirement fund does not have $50 but rather
billions of dollars to manage. These billions of dollars will be
invested in corporations, some of which will meet social
standards and others not, hence the need to raise awareness among
workers and retirement fund owners.
Of course, this bill is not perfect. Compared to what is going
on in the United States in terms of shareholders' activism, Canada
is still living in the stone age. Fortunately, we are heading in
the right direction.
Why I am talking about the United States? Because, for several
years now, it has been much easier to make shareholder proposals
in the States than in Canada. In the U.S., 200 to 300 shareholder
proposals are made every year in annual shareholder meetings,
compared to only about 10 here in Canada.
Although this bill is not perfect, it opens a door. As I was
saying, in the United States, shareholders have a lot more power.
The Varity Corp. case is a clear example of the difference in the
degree of power in terms of the eligibility requirements for
making shareholder proposals for companies incorporated under
federal jurisdiction in Canada and for companies incorporated in
the U.S.
The Varity Corp. case deals with a proposal of a social nature
that the Jesuits presented in Canada at the annual meeting of
Massey Ferguson shareholders in 1987. The Jesuits wanted Massey
Ferguson to withdraw from South Africa. They submitted a
proposal to the corporation, which was able to reject it because
of its social nature. The Jesuits turned to the Canadian courts,
which ruled in favour of the corporation.
However, Massey Ferguson shares were also traded on the American
stock exchange. Following a ruling by the SEC, the Security
Exchange Commission, the company had to accept to circulate the
proposal to withdraw from South Africa. The possibility of
circulating that proposal at the annual meeting was rejected in
Canada, but it was accepted in the United States.
In fact, several other similar proposals were accepted in the
United States.
A recent example of a shareholders proposal in Canada is the
proposal submitted by various large Canadian investors,
including the FTQ, through its Fonds de solidarité, to the three
largest retailers in this country, namely Hudson's Bay, Sears
Canada and Wal-Mart. The proposal calls upon the companies to
improve their codes of conduct and their monitoring methods to
ensure that their suppliers meet International Labour
Organization standards.
Under the existing law, the companies may reject that proposal.
With the new law, it will be more difficult.
I now want to move on to the improvements that must be made to
the bill or, at least, about the proposals my colleague from
Témiscamingue and I will put forward in committee because, as I
said, although the bill goes in the right direction it may be to
vague in some regards.
In fact, there are too many references to regulations. What I
want to say is that in the United States there is a special
tribunal to settle disputes between shareholders and companies,
the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC.
1310
The SEC is an effective mechanism, but the bill does not provide
for any dispute settlement mechanism. It is said in the bill that
the minister will see to it later. I think that we have an
opportunity to make constructive suggestions.
Personally, I suggest that we set up a dispute settlement
mechanism that can be triggered rapidly. For example, the company
could choose an arbitrator, the shareholder could choose another,
and a third could be appointed by the minister. Of course, this
third arbitrator would be impartial. Such a mechanism would not
be costly, it would be fast and it could set precedents.
Unfortunately, the bill says this will be set out in the
regulations. This will not be included in the bill. The minister
will be able to decide how the dispute settlement mechanism will
be set up.
My concern is that shareholders might be at a disadvantage with
a mechanism established by the minister. Of course, I am
speculating, because I do not know what will happen.
Another point is that the bill does not include the amount of
shares a shareholder must hold to make a proposal. This would be
set out in the regulations.
Perhaps it will be said that, to make a proposal at the annual
shareholders' meeting, a shareholder would have to hold $2,000 or
$500 in shares, or whatever. I would a specific amount included
in the bill. If it is not included in the bill, it would be set
out in the regulations and could be changed whenever the minister
wanted to do so.
My concern is that the minimum amount or percentage of shares
held by a shareholder could be increased. Thus, the shareholders'
power to make proposals would become a power only for the rich,
for those holding many shares in the company. This is a threat
that we see in the bill, as it now stands.
Another point is the possibility for a shareholder to come back
the following year if his proposal has been refused. I suggest
that if, in the first year, the shareholder's proposal has been
refused, but he has received at least 3% of the vote of
shareholders, he could come back the following year to make his
proposal once again. The following year, if he has received 6%,
he could come back the next year; the third year, if he has
received 9%, he could come back the year after that, and so on.
At least he could promote his cause within the company.
Some might say that this is some sort of political interference
in companies.
This is not political interference, but just shareholders taking
their responsibilities. This would be excellent for companies, I
believe.
It could make companies more responsible. It could bring about
sustainable development, as we say in
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, development that respects social and
environmental rights.
A company, whose name escapes me, made an investment in the
Philippines, and shareholders suggested that it should get out of
this investment because of the catastrophic environmental impact
mining could have on people. The company kept mining there, and
the environmental impact was indeed serious. The company incurred
heavy losses.
Although the tone of my remarks is admittedly social, I must
recognize that this empowerment of shareholders can also have a
positive impact on companies in the long term. Companies should
have a long term vision of their business. Like the governments,
they must respect the environment and social standards.
There is another positive element for companies and even for
Canada. If the president of an U.S. union that has a pension fund
wants to invest in a business headquartered in Canada but cannot
issue shareholder proposals, he could very well say “I will not
invest in Canada, because my rights as an investor and
shareholder are infringed upon”.
1315
It can limit investment in Canada. If the bill is amended
properly and allows for a healthy dose of shareholder activism, I
think it would be good for investment in Canada because, as I was
saying, the rights of shareholders would be respected.
I recognize that this is not simple, but it gives me hope. I
only talked about section 137 of the bill. There is a lot more in
this bill, which is quite voluminous and on which bureaucrats
have been working for several years.
The Bloc Quebecois and myself have several reservations,
particularly with regard to securities. We will try to express
these reservations in committee. What I wanted to focus on today
was really that part of the bill that opens the door to what is
called shareholder activism.
One of the pioneers of shareholder activism in Canada—there are
several—who is better known in Quebec and who has been dubbed
the Robin Hood of the banking industry is Yves Michaud. As a
shareholder dissatisfied with the behaviour of our voracious
banks, he attended a shareholders' meeting to submit proposals
for increased transparency on the part of the bank and for more
reasonable salaries for bank executives.
One of Mr. Michaud's proposals was aimed at ensuring that a bank
executive's salary was not more than 40 times higher than the
salary of an employee in one of its branches. This would have
introduced a social component in the behaviour of banks.
The Shareholder Association for Research and Education, in
Vancouver, of which Peter Chapman is the director, does a lot of
work in this regard. The Interchurch Committee on Corporate
Responsibility and the Social Investment Organization, for which
Tessa Hebb, a professor at the University of Ottawa, works, have
been working on this for a number of years.
There is the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec.
This represents the largest union in Quebec that is interested
in these issues. I am also thinking of François Rebello, who is
presently working on these issues, saying to unions and pension
funds managers “Listen, give me the mandate to go to
shareholders' meetings, and I will report back to you on them.
Give me the right to vote for you”.
All this is shareholders putting democracy to work. All this is
the democratization of capital.
I am not saying that this will change the world. All I am saying
is that this can be a useful tool when businesses with a very
high global productivity are tempted to do things like laying
off workers, polluting the environment, overexploiting natural
resources. If we act responsively as owners of pension funds, it
could make a difference. One out of every two dollars on the
financial market is owned by workers. This is important.
That is about all I wanted to say, and I hope that my remarks
will have an impact on the decisions of the standing committee
on industry. I hope the committee will be receptive to our
proposal to include in the bill elements that could help create
a culture of shareholder activism.
[English]
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
bill is the first major overhaul of the Canada Business
Corporations Act since 1975. It also overhauls the Canada
Cooperatives Act and seeks to harmonize the Canada Cooperatives
Act with the Canada Business Corporations Act.
1320
Shortly after it was elected in 1993 the Liberal government
began a lengthy consultation process on overhauling the Canada
Business Corporations Act, a process which has led to the
introduction of the bill. The government consulted over 1,700
corporations, corporate associations and corporate law firms but
only 41 citizens groups. It appears to have largely ignored the
contributions of citizens groups.
Although the consultation process was drawn out over a long
period it was not a fair process and the government clearly did
not consult as broadly as it should have.
To add insult to injury, after waiting 25 years to overhaul the
Canada Business Corporations Act the Liberal government is all of
a sudden in a big rush to push the bill through the House as
quickly as possible. Why is there such a rush to pass it after
25 years?
After 25 years of overhauling the act we have the Broadbent
commission, chaired by Ed Broadbent, whose panel includes
representatives from business and labour. The panel is going
across the country holding consultations on the issue of
corporate responsibility. Those two words, corporate
responsibility, probably shock the heck out of the governing
party.
The Liberal government is clearly rushing to get the bill passed
before the Broadbent commission finishes its work next month.
After waiting 25 years the government will rush the bill through
within the next 30 days. It wants to avoid addressing the issues
the Broadbent commission is dealing with.
The Minister of Industry has assured Mr. Broadbent he will take
the commission's findings into account. If that is so, why is
the government in such a rush to pass the bill after 25 years?
The minister is taking a similar approach to another bill, Bill
S-17, which overhauls the Patent Act. He says there is no time
to deal with the problems of the Patent Act which have caused the
price of medicine to rise by 87% in the last 10 years. One in
ten Canadians cannot afford the prescription medicines they need.
There has been an 87% increase in prescription drug costs. This
is a serious problem. However the Liberal government does not
want to deal with it so it says there is no time.
The real issue is that the Liberal government is putting big
corporations ahead of the sick and elderly in Canada who are
struggling to pay for their medicine.
It is the same issue here. The government does not want to deal
with the findings of the Broadbent commission. The Broadbent
commission, unlike the government, is talking to ordinary
citizens who are concerned about democracy and corporate
responsibility. The Liberal government consulted only with
corporations and after 25 years it is suddenly in a rush to pass
the bill.
The bill has a lot of technical amendments to bring the act up
to date with our current legal system and allow corporations to
make better use of electronic communications. That is not a
problem.
The three parts of the bill of most concern deal with director
liability, shareholder rights and Canadian residency
requirements. The words shareholder rights and director
liability are probably not well enforced on the other side.
The bill makes it easier for corporate directors to defend
themselves from lawsuits if they break their fiduciary
responsibilities. Canadian governments have a long history of
breaking fiduciary responsibility. They have been doing it to
first nations people for decades.
At present corporate directors can use the defence of good faith
reliance. They can defend themselves from lawsuits by showing
they have acted in good faith and relied on reasonable
information from experts like accountants, economists and
engineers. Bill S-17 would replace the defence of good faith
reliance with a new defence called due diligence.
The Liberal government is trying to make corporate directors
even less accountable by removing the obligation to show that
they base their actions on facts and expert opinions. Bill S-17
would switch to the more vague language of due diligence which
could mean anything and be interpreted in almost any way by the
courts.
Why is the government making the language clearer in the rest of
the bill but less clear in the section dealing with director
liability?
1325
If anyone thinks corporate directors need to be less
accountable, as the bill would ensure, they need only look at the
Westray tragedy. The bill deals with civil and not criminal
liability. However the two are related because the managers of
the Westray mine avoided both criminal and civil liability for
the deaths of 26 coal miners. Today one of the Westray managers
manages a Canadian owned mine in Central America.
I want every member of the House to recognize that it was
Justice Richard's inquiry, a long, drawn out inquiry into the
Westray tragedy, and its recommendations that prompted the
government to put in place criminal liability for corporate
directors and executives who knowingly put lives at risk. It was
Justice Richard who asked the government to respond.
What has the government done? Nothing. To this day, nine years
after the tragedy, nine years yesterday, the government has done
nothing. It has already been a number of years since Justice
Richard's recommendations were made.
Prior to the election the government made a big show of how it
would come forth with legislation to deal with the issue. What
are we now hearing? The government will consult industry. After
Justice Richard's lengthy inquiry that is its biggest concern. It
would rather not deal with the issue at all.
We need to put the bill before committee and have public
hearings on it. Let us listen to what industry has to say
because a lot of corporations live by the rules and have ethics.
They are not the ones for which we bring in laws. It is for the
ones which do not have ethics and do not care about workers that
we have laws. Not all citizens will commit criminal acts but we
want to be able to charge those who do and hold them accountable.
The corporate manslaughter issue is about holding corporations
responsible.
We have been waiting for the bill for how many years? How many
years has the issue been dragging on? Since 1993 the government
has had lengthy discussions. We are rushing the bill through
now, but where is the legislation on corporate manslaughter? Why
is it not being rushed through the House? Why do we not have it
on our plates to deal with? It is because the government is not
concerned about it.
Hon. members might gather that I am very passionate about the
Westray tragedy. I come from a mining community and have seen
numerous deaths over the years. Some were accidental and
unavoidable, but for a number of others there should have been
accountability. When workers go into those places they do not
have the same rights as each of us. If we get killed in the
House, if someone gets us at the door coming in, they will be
liable for murder. It is not the same for ordinary workers going
into their workplaces. We are protected. Other workers are not,
and that is because the government has failed to bring in
legislation.
To give credit where it is due, the bill makes progressive
changes on the issue of shareholder rights. My colleague from
the Bloc mentioned a number of them. Although the bill does not
go far enough in giving shareholders real influence over
corporations, it is an improvement.
Bill S-11 would allow shareholders to submit resolutions at
annual meetings on any issue pertaining to the business of the
corporation. At present, shareholder resolutions pertaining to
social or other issues not related to the profitability of the
company are not allowed.
However in my view social issues are related to profitability. I
do not buy from companies which have substandard labour
legislation or take part in human rights violations. For years I
made a point of boycotting grapes because of the treatment of
farm workers in California and throughout the world. I make a
point of making a statement. If a product's country of origin is
not marked I take it to the grocery store till and ask. If they
cannot tell me I do not buy the product. If it comes from a
country with a poor human rights record I do not buy it.
1330
I am not the only one who does that. A lot of responsible,
principled people do that because they genuinely care about
the people in their country and those throughout the world. I am
proud and happy to say that I believe the majority of people
would do that if they knew those violations were taking place.
I do not buy rugs that come from certain countries unless they
have a tag that says they are not made by child labour. I do not
buy certain running shoes. I and a lot of other people do not
wear the hats or the logo of certain companies. Many people
want to know where products come from and they will make a point
of asking.
I prefer to buy Canadian made items because, at least for the
most part we are not as bad as other countries. Bad practices
do take place in the workplace in Canada but for the most part
we are doing a good job. Canada should not lower its labour
standards nor diminish workers' rights or its treatment of
children. We need to promote Canada's good practices throughout
the world.
I would like to return to the issue of profitability of a company. If
shareholders find out that the company they partly own is
polluting the environment, today they cannot propose a resolution
calling on the corporation to put a stop to it. Bill S-11 would
make this shareholder resolution possible, and that is a good
move.
Another improvement to shareholders' rights that our party
supports is the ease with which shareholders would be able to
communicate with each other. Under the current Canada Business
Corporations Act, it is illegal today for shareholders to solicit
proxy votes from other shareholders unless they go to the great
expense of sending out a circular to all shareholders. Bill S-11
would allow shareholders to communicate in other less expensive
ways, including websites.
We agree with the changes because they would make it easier for
groups of small shareholders to band together at shareholders'
meetings. It is sad to say that shareholders have to fight to
have a say in a corporation that they invest in.
It is important to note that the Liberal government is hardly
breaking new ground with these improvements to shareholders'
rights. Canada is just playing catch up with the United States
which has some of the most progressive laws in the world
regarding shareholders' rights. It shows how Canada, under the
Liberal government, has fallen behind on some progressive issues.
There are two specific areas where the bill does not go far
enough in expanding and improving shareholders' rights.
First, shareholders should have the right to obtain information
about a corporation's compliance with the law. It is hard to
believe but today corporations do not have to disclose their
non-compliance with the law. It can be very hard for
shareholders or other people to find out if a corporation is
violating labour laws or laws to protect the environment. It is
even harder to find out if these violations occur in other
countries. Corporations should have to be completely open and
transparent with their shareholders about these issues.
Many people want to be ethical investors. They want to know
that when they buy shares in a company they are not contributing
to the destruction of the environment or violating human rights.
Shareholders should have the right to know these things. We
emphasize that Canadians do not want to see their Canada pension
plan dollars invested in unethical funds, such as in tobacco
companies or in mining companies, that are literally wiping out
villages in other countries. I know the issue of Talisman oil
has come up in these discussions already today.
Shareholders' rights could also be improved by creating a
shareholders' rights watchdog group. Many states in the U.S.
have created these sorts of groups and they are working out very
well. Corporations get shareholders to sign up to the
shareholders' rights group. This costs the government and the
corporations nothing. All the corporation is doing is inserting
a form in a mailing that it has to send out anyway. A
shareholders' rights watchdog group is funded and run by its
members. There should be no objection to putting it in.
I would like to speak about the issue of Canadian residency.
Bill S-11 reduces the requirement for directors of chartered
corporations to be residents of Canada. At the present time a
majority of the board of directors of a corporation chartered
under the Canada Business Corporations Act must be Canadian
residents. The current CBCA also requires that a majority of the
members of any committees of the board be Canadian
residents. Bill S-11 reduces the Canadian residency requirement
to 25% of the board of directors and completely eliminates the
Canadian residency requirement for committees of the board.
There are good arguments for and against the Canadian residency
requirement.
1335
On the one hand the argument in favour of the Canadian residency
requirement is that in theory if the directors of Canadian
corporations live in Canada, they would be closer to the
consequences of the corporations' actions and the corporations
would therefore be more socially responsible.
On the other hand the existence of these rules has not done much
to turn Canadian corporations into good corporate citizens. Many
corporate directors live in places such as Toronto and Calgary
while their corporations do business in other parts of the
country or even abroad. This has not stopped Canadian
corporations based in the financial capitals of countries from
closing mines and mills in the hinterlands, breaking labour laws,
polluting or even violating human rights.
The Canadian residency requirement is a disincentive for
corporations to charter in Canada. Canada is the only G-7
country that imposes residency requirements. There are four
provinces that do not impose residency requirements: New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec.
Corporations that want to get around the residency requirement
can already do so by chartering at the provincial level.
Since it has not done much good to make corporations into good
citizens, reducing the Canadian residency requirement may help
make Canadian corporations more internationally competitive at
little cost. However the issue does seem to warrant more
consideration and discussion. It would be nice to hear, for
example, what the Broadbent commission has to say on the issue
but unfortunately the Liberal government is rushing headlong into
the bill before the commission finishes its work.
In conclusion, there has been much discussion over the last few
years about corporate responsibility, ethical corporations and
good corporate citizens. For the most part corporations are good
business operators and good managers that abide by the rules.
However it is the same as with anything. We need legislation to
take to task those corporations that do not do so, those
corporations that finagle, manipulate, and are not upfront and
honest with their shareholders. Those are the ones we are
dealing with. We need to give shareholders the right to check
things out in the same way that corporations have the right to
check things out. Shareholders need to have the same rights.
It is crucially important that the government move forward on
the whole issue of corporate criminal liability. Under
absolutely no circumstances whatsoever should one more worker in
Canada die with a corporate executive or director getting away
with it if he or she knowingly put that life in jeopardy.
I will once again mention that as of yesterday over the past
nine years there were 26 deaths and no one has been held
criminally responsible. What have we done to address that?
Nothing. It will not go away this time. We will not let it be
put to rest.
Week after week we will continue to remind the government that
it made a commitment to the people of Canada prior to the
election last year that it would deal with the issue of corporate
responsibility and criminal liability. We will make sure that it
keeps its promise and, if it does not, we will make sure that
Canadians hear over and over again that it has failed to do what
it promised.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for Churchill for her very eloquent remarks.
She outlined very well some of the real problems that Canadian
consumers, citizens and active participants in society face when
it comes to dealing with megacorporations. A lot of people feel
powerless. They feel like they are individuals taking on a
massive structure which by its very nature is very undemocratic.
The hon. member for Churchill has provided some very good
evidence of some of the problems facing us in terms of
dealing with these very undemocratic structures.
1340
The member gave the example of the Westray disaster and the
tragic deaths that occurred there nine years ago. The fact that
the government has not taken any action is regrettable and again
another indication of how this part of our society, these
corporations and massive institutions, has been allowed to get
off scot-free. They operate in a realm where most of us feel
like we have very little recourse to deal with them. We could go
through the judicial system, which is hugely expensive, but we
would be up against a corporation that has very deep pockets.
I would like the member to comment further on the growing
movement of consumers who are taking action into their own hands.
Consumers say that they will make choices about what they do.
They will not use their hard earned dollars to purchase goods or
services from corporations that are blatant in terms of their
disregard of human rights, the environment or the way they treat
women or minorities. This movement is growing very strong in
Canada. Would the member agree with that?
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, there is no question
that a majority of people would agree with that. My colleague and
I and the rest of our caucus went to Quebec City to the people's
summit because there were concerns over trade issues and the way
huge corporations were starting to control the political agenda
and the legislation in numerous countries.
The legislation would protect people and give them information.
Our party believes that individuals should be allowed to decide.
They should be given the information on which to decide about an issue
such as genetically modified foods.
If there is nothing to fear, the information should be put on
the label and individuals should be allowed to decide whether or not they
want to take that chance. The same applies to buying products
made in other countries where maybe the labour standards are not
up to snuff.
We know there is a problem in Indonesia so we do not make a
decision to stop buying coffee there. However we will not buy
coffee from Indonesia if we know that its farmers are not being
treated fairly or that someone is running roughshod over the
people and violating human rights.
We are not jeopardizing the rights of Canadian citizens by
saying they cannot do something. We are saying that individuals
should be given the information. Information is what it is
about. Everyone has the right to ask those questions. We should
not have legislation in place, either through this piece of
legislation or any other, that says it might jeopardize corporate
profitability.
Is corporate profitability more important than knowing that a
four year old is sitting at a loom making a rug we are going to
walk on so that we can get it for some $20 less? How many of us,
if we knew that a four or five or six year old was working on a
loom day after day to put a rug under our feet, would buy the
darn thing? We would not.
However let us go a step further, have some principles and say
that people have a right to know where something is made. They
have a right to know if a company is using child labour or if it
is paying wages below the standards that it is supposed to. We
have a right to know these things.
The legislation should be about the rights of shareholders to
control what their corporation is doing. If they are investing
they have a right to know where the corporation is investing and
if it is breaking laws. That is what we are asking. We are not
saying that shareholders cannot do it. We are saying they have a
right to know and the right to get information in order to make
decisions.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the member for Churchill on her impassioned speech and
her reference to the Westray disaster in Nova Scotia. As a Nova
Scotian it means a great deal to have members of parliament from
other parts of the country recognize the call for action that is
represented by what happened in Westray.
I learned a great deal about consumer power and the power of
consumer advocacy from the hon. member for Churchill, even about
ethically raised grapes. I would suggest that any farmer or
jurisdiction which allows grapes to be raised in an unethical
manner will be subject to the wrath of grapes from the hon.
member.
Further to that I will also recognize that we have global
leadership provided by some companies, for instance, on issues of
the treatment of animals and animal testing and that sort of
thing.
1345
An interesting question dawned on me the other day. There are
companies that for years have marketed against animal testing. I
think the Body Shop was probably the first company. The other
day I was in a pet supply store buying shampoo for my dog. I
looked at the label of the dog shampoo and was shocked and
appalled because there was no warning against human testing.
Perhaps that is another issue for another day in this place and
for now we can move forward, but right now my dog is using
shampoo that may have been tested on humans. That is clearly a
loophole we should seek to fill.
Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act,
is a very important and long overdue act. The bill comes to us
from the Senate, where it should be noted that a very important
amendment was put forth by my colleague, Senator Oliver, and
adopted by that House.
Senator Oliver's amendment corrected a major flaw in the act.
Before the amendment there was no statutory review of the act, an
act that has a major impact on Canada's business framework and
indeed on our competitiveness. The amendment was proposed
because it is recognized that in a global, hypercompetitive, ever
changing economy we cannot leave legislation or a regulatory
framework like this untouched for 25 years, as was the case in
this instance.
When we are looking at the types of policy frameworks that
companies or investors look at when determining where to invest
in the world, not only is tax policy important, and it is, or
regulatory burden important, and it is, but increasingly issues
of corporate governance are moving to the forefront as being
extremely important in every country in the world. We need to
ensure that we have clear, consistent, up to date policies in
that regard that are reflective of those that exist in other
countries.
While I am glad to see the government finally move forward on
this issue, the fact that it has been 25 years since we have had
major updates is unfortunate. I heartily commend the initiative
and the amendment of Senator Oliver which will ensure that this
does not happen again.
Canadians are battling on a daily basis to attract investment
and capital to our country. If we look at the secular decline of
the Canadian dollar over the last 30 years, much of that has to
do with declining levels of productivity. Productivity is
closely related to levels of investment, and when we fail to
attract investment usually the consequence is that we fail to
develop greater levels of productivity in our country.
Of course that is reflected in our limp loonie, our falling
dollar, which continues to be a source of concern if not
embarrassment for many Canadians as Canadians see their standard
of living decline with the declining dollar. In fact, Canadians
are taking a pay cut every time our dollar drops relative to that
of the U.S. These are some of the issues we have to consider.
Certainly corporate law administration in Canada has been
consistently quite good. On the issue of corporate governance
addressed by the legislation, Canada has not had a bad record,
but we have failed in many ways to keep up to some of the trends
that have occurred in other countries and with our trading
partners.
1350
In researching our response to the legislation, I was shocked to
find that a 1996 recommendation by the Senate banking, trade and
commerce committee to institute a review within 10 years was
actually rejected by the industry department. The government's
reasoning at the time was this:
The increased recognition of corporate law and corporate
governance issues as factors affecting the competitiveness of
corporations will likely ensure the continued improvement of
corporate laws.
That is a great leap of faith coming from the government. I
would argue that where government does have a responsibility in a
market driven economy is to set in place the framework within
which the private sector and in fact the public sector can work
and develop. In not rigorously maintaining and updating its
regulations relative to corporate governance issues, the
government has clearly abdicated its responsibility in this
regard.
This is just one part of competitiveness and one part of the
framework required to ensure to investors looking to make
investments anywhere in the world that Canada is a good place to
do business and that in fact, along with tax policy and
regulatory policy, along with these other issues, corporate
governance is increasingly important. I would hope that the
government would become much more vigilant in evaluating the
threats and opportunities in this competitive global environment
and would move more proactively in addressing them with
legislation in the House.
Again this legislation came to us from the Senate and again it
is reflective of some of the very positive benefits of our Senate
and of some of the forward thinking and visionary approaches
taken by our members in the upper House. I would commend them
for their input on this initiative and for their amendments,
which in fact have improved the legislation.
An hon. member: Senator Brison.
Mr. Scott Brison: One of my hon. colleagues has referred
to me as Senator Brison. That is not the case, but we are
still waiting.
We need to impress on the government that its policies relative
to an industrial policy for the country and relative to a
framework for growth and competitiveness have been sadly lacking.
That the legislation is coming to us after such delays and
dilly-dallying is unfortunate. We need to ensure on an ongoing
basis that we are updating our corporate governance rules and
that not only are we keeping up with global trends but perhaps
actually seeking to set some global trends in this and in other
areas.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
once again I congratulate my friend and colleague from
Kings—Hants who certainly has spent an awful lot of time in the
House this morning.
There was a comment made suggesting that perhaps he was a
senator from Kings—Hants. Knowing full well that it is the hon.
member's birthday today, does that have anything to do with the
fact that his age is the reason he was referred to as senator?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
from Brandon—Souris for his very serious question somehow
linking my birthday to the gift of a position in the Senate. It
is an interesting position but, Mr. Speaker, I would argue that
if that in fact were the case it would be a gift that keeps on
giving.
1355
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on
Industry, Science and Technology.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time
and referred to a committee)
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
LEO HAYES HIGH SCHOOL
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the pleasure to rise today to welcome a group of students and
teachers from Leo Hayes High School to our nation's capital.
It remains a constant challenge for us as parliamentarians to
engage young people in continuous, open dialogue and to pique
their interest in our ongoing political work.
I would like to commend the parents and teachers who helped
raise funds for the trip. They have provided a wonderful
experience to the students while at the same time providing them
with an exciting way to learn about the Canadian parliamentary
system and Ottawa.
It is with great pleasure that I wish all the students, teachers
and chaperons a splendid stay for the remainder of their trip. I
would particularly like to thank the Leo Hayes choir for its
performance at noon in the rotunda.
* * *
JESSICA KOOPMANS
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, a heart-wrenching event has taken place and we need
everyone's help. Five year old Jessica Koopmans went missing
from her front yard in north Lethbridge last Friday, May 4 at
approximately 5 p.m.
The Lethbridge City Police, assisted by RCMP officers from as
far away as Calgary and Edmonton, have been working day and night
to find Jessica. Hundreds and hundreds of volunteers from
communities throughout southern Alberta have helped in the search
and support is pouring in for the distraught family.
Jessica is five years old. She is four feet tall and weighs 40
pounds. She was last seen wearing a white tank top, blue jean
shorts and pink sandals. She has shoulder length brown hair,
blue eyes and freckles. Further information and a picture of
Jessica can be seen at www.jessicakoopmans.com.
1400
I am calling on my colleagues in the House of Commons and on all
Canadians to pray for Jessica. If anyone receives any
information or if anyone sees Jessica, please contact the
Lethbridge city police at 403-328-4444.
* * *
[Translation]
MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue are calling for a mining
sector emergency fund.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
join the member for Fredericton in welcoming choir members from
Leo Hayes High School. Their melodious voices filled the hallway
today, a welcome break from the usual drone that fills these
hallways.
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment recently
announced the winners of its fourth annual pollution prevention
awards which honour organizations showing innovation and
leadership in the area of pollution prevention.
Established to emphasize preventing pollution at the source,
this year's awards will be presented on June 7 at the Canadian
pollution prevention round table in St. John's, Newfoundland. Two
of this year's six recipients, both from Saint John, New
Brunswick, deserve mention.
First, Irving Pulp and Paper will be recognized for its use of
innovative technologies to ensure its mill waste water is
completely non-toxic and less harmful to the Saint John River.
Second, Irving Oil Refinery will be awarded for being the first
oil refinery to produce low sulphur gasoline for consumer use,
two years ahead of legislative requirements.
I congratulate both companies on their achievements. I
encourage them and all industry to continue fielding technical
advancements which promote safer water and a cleaner environment.
* * *
TULIP FESTIVAL
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is the time of year in the national capital region when we
enjoy the brilliant colours of the tulips throughout the city of
Ottawa.
[Translation]
This weekend marks the start of the Canadian Tulip Festival.
[English]
Since 1953 we have celebrated the arrival of spring every year
with this festival. This great event originated in 1945 when
Princess Juliana of the Netherlands donated over 100,000 tulip
bulbs to Canada. This was a gesture of thanks for providing the
Dutch royal family with safe haven during World War II and for
the role Canadian forces played in liberating the Netherlands
from the Nazis.
This year Great Britain will co-sponsor the festival which will
be launched with a 46 metre tulip balloon on Parliament Hill. We
invite all Canadians to participate in the music and activities
and to enjoy the colourful display of millions of tulips.
* * *
NURSING WEEK
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this week is Nursing Week but all is
not well. In the next 10 years we will have a shortage of
112,000 nurses. Hospitals are relying on nurses to do overtime
just to fill their spots. I have worked in hospitals where half
the nursing spots in the intensive care unit and emergency
department are simply not filled.
This crisis is not only confined to nursing. It also happens
with physicians. Our population is aging too. Today 25% of the
physician population is over the age of 55. In the next 15 years
that number will rise to the point where 45% of all doctors will
be over the age of 55. The crisis is staggering. Who will care
for us when we are old if there are no doctors and nurses left?
I implore the government to work with the provinces to increase
enrolment in medical, nursing and training faculties by 20% and
have a tuition for service in outlying areas program that will
enable us to fill the absolute dire crisis in rural areas. We
must act now. This crisis is not going away. Lives depend on
it.
* * *
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to announce on behalf of
the Minister of Industry and Technology Partnerships Canada a
$3.9 million investment into MD Robotics, a space robotics
company in my riding of Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale.
The investment will allow MD Robotics to create 74 high quality
jobs in Brampton. This is another example of the government's
support of projects which create skilled jobs, strong growth and
a knowledge based economy in communities across the country such
as Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale.
* * *
[Translation]
CHRISTOPHER AUGER
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday and today, I have had the pleasure of
hosting here on the Hill the MP for a day for
Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, Christopher Auger.
Christopher is the fourth winner of the MP for a day contest for
my riding, having made a distinguished showing on a test of
general knowledge about politics, coming first out of nearly
1,200 secondary IV students.
During his stay in Ottawa, Christopher has been able to
familiarize himself with the parliamentary duties of an MP and
to have a close-up view of the action here on Parliament Hill.
1405
He and his mother, Dr. Jocelyne Lortie, had the honour of
speaking with you yesterday, and today he had a private talk,
before question period, with the leader of the Bloc Quebecois
and member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
On behalf of all my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I welcome
Christopher to parliament. I hope he enjoys his visit.
* * *
[English]
VOLUNTEERS
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the United Nations has declared 2001 as International Year of
Volunteers. Today in Mississauga the Peel District School Board
will honour the long term commitment of over 100 parent
volunteers and community representatives for their contributions
to building a stronger link between school and community.
Eight of those one hundred individuals are parent volunteers
from two schools in my riding: Mila Jack and Judy Robertson are
20 year volunteers; Sharlaine Howes and Marg Snider are 15 year
volunteers; Karen Bateson, Carolyn Christou and Jane Inglis are
10 year volunteers, all of Pheasant Run Public School; and Joanne
Bain is a 10 year volunteer at Settler's Green Public School.
I thank the Peel District School Board for honouring the efforts
of these individuals and those eight volunteers and all others
for their tireless, dedicated and continuous contributions to our
community.
* * *
CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate three
outstanding young people from my riding of Crowfoot: Darla Mohan
of Camrose, Jackie Brown of Erskine, and Heather André of
Drumheller.
These constituents were among the 220 young Canadians selected
by their local Rotary associations to visit the national capital
region as participants in the adventure in citizenship program, a
program that focuses attention on the diversity of Canada and on
the institutions and values that unite us.
Last week it was with extreme pleasure that I joined Darla,
Jackie and Heather at the adventure in citizenship reception on
the Hill. Even in the brief period I spent in their company it
was very apparent why they were chosen to visit Ottawa
representing their local communities. They were all exceptional
teenagers who had made significant contributions to their
communities. I say to Darla, Heather and Jackie, way to go.
* * *
[Translation]
CHRYSOTILE ASBESTOS
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, over 1,000 people who care about my beautiful region
of Frontenac—Mégantic, which is the cradle of the chrysotile
industry, went to the national assembly to express their
discontent over the unjustified ban on asbestos.
Chrysotile asbestos is a natural, recyclable fibre that is
inexpensive but, more important, safe. Yet it is constantly
discredited, even though many scientific studies confirm that it
can be safely used in a controlled environment.
Canada supports the principle of safe use by making regular and
constant representations at the international level. Unqualified
support for the safe use of chrysotile is necessary so that
this product can get its reputation back.
Let us all work together, at the federal, provincial and
municipal levels, to achieve that goal, because we have
everything to gain from protecting the future of this resource.
* * *
[English]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this morning
the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage announced an 18 month
study into the current and future system of broadcasting in
Canada. The committee will be looking into Canadian content and
creation for radio and TV, broadcast ownership, industry
regulation, the role for public broadcasting and the Internet.
For the committee to do a credible job, the government must let
all parties know that the next 18 months is not a time to
restructure like crazy in order to escape any possible government
action in response to the study. The government should clearly
warn the industry that all major changes made from this day
forward may be subject to review and reversal when the committee
reports.
The government should also announce that broadcasting is
explicitly off the table at international trade talks including
the GATS so as not to compromise our work.
Our task is to provide a vision for the 21st century. The
government's task is to show the political courage to make it
happen.
* * *
[Translation]
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal government is divesting itself of
the port facilities that it has abandoned for decades.
In the area of air transportation, the federal government made
hostages of the regions. Airfares are exorbitant and flight
schedules are ineffective.
The federal government is also neglecting the whole shipbuilding
industry, and Quebec shipyards are still waiting for the
necessary funding.
The federal government has systematically demonstrated its
inability to provide Quebec with transportation infrastructures
that support its development.
Such are the costs of Canadian federalism, of Quebec's
non-sovereignty. Quebecers can no longer tolerate this situation.
What Quebecers want is a sovereign Quebec that will be receptive
to their needs and that will have the tools to correct the
situation. They want a Quebec in which we will be responsible
for our actions as a people.
Quebec's sovereignty is the only solution.
* * *
1410
BILINGUALISM IN THE CITY OF OTTAWA
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
Ottawa's municipal council gave Canada a bilingual capital in
which Ottawa residents and hundreds of thousands of visitors
will be entitled to receive services in French as well as
English.
Today, I wish to thank Mayor Bob Chiarelli and councillors
Elisabeth Arnold, Michel Bellemare, Rainer Bloess, Rick
Chiarelli, Alex Cullen, Diane Deans, Clive Doucet, Dwight
Eastman, Peter Hume, Herb Kreling, Jacques Legendre, Phil
McNeely, Madeleine Meilleur, Alex Munter, Janet Stavinga and
Wendy Stewart for the stand they took yesterday.
These men and women will go down not just in the history of
their city, but in the history of their country as well.
[English]
In the fall of 1999 Glen Shortliffe recommended the merger of
all the municipalities to form a new capital of Canada and that
it be officially bilingual. The Ontario government chose not to
do it at the time, saying that it was a local decision.
The local decision was made yesterday. City council accepted a
bilingual policy and has asked the government of Ontario to amend
the law to reflect and guarantee those services. I invite the
government of Ontario to do just that and I hope that it will.
* * *
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
parliament, Canada's House of Commons, clearly expressed its will
that we need national drinking water standards in Canada by
approving the Progressive Conservative motion. We call on the
federal government to act, as the motion said, immediately to
provide a safe drinking water act.
We must be respectful of shared jurisdiction for the
environment. We must recognize the moral obligation of Health
Canada to actually ensure that our drinking water is safe. That
is what we do now with the Food and Drugs Act when we measure
toxicity levels in chemicals or in pesticides.
The motion says immediately. If we do not see action by the
fall by convening a meeting of the health ministers across
Canada, if we do not see an act by the fall, we could only call
it a breach of parliament and a breach of the Canadian will.
Moreover the health minister will be letting down Canadians by
not providing for safe drinking water in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
MARIE CARDINAL
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great regret that we learned of the death of writer Marie
Cardinal.
Madame Cardinal's philosophical and feminist works, which were
translated into 26 languages, left their mark on us. These
works included: Écoutez la mer, Autrement dit, Une vie pour deux
and, more recently, Amours...amours.
In addition to reading what she wrote, we could hear it as well,
because La clé sur la porte and Les mots pour le dire were made
into movies.
On behalf of my party and myself, I wish to convey heartfelt
condolences to the family and friends of Marie Cardinal. They
can rest assured that this great woman will live on in our
collective memory.
* * *
[English]
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the recent incident of a Liberal
member of parliament dishonouring a veteran because of the way
the veteran voted should be an isolated incident, but it is not.
Previously the veterans affairs minister refused to help to send
some of our war veterans back to commemorate Christmas in Ortona.
A local newspaper had to raise the money.
The government's fiasco in attempting to apportion part of the
Canadian War Museum to the holocaust memorial was prompted by the
minister of heritage. She did not even consult Canadian
veterans. Powerful public opinion changed that.
The same minister did not bother asking the war museum's
advisory committee or veteran organizations before announcing the
change in the location of the new war museum.
There are two questions: When will this abuse of our veterans
come to an end and when will the insult to our veterans cease?
* * *
[Translation]
MARIE CARDINAL
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how do I say
it: Marie Cardinal has passed away. She died yesterday, in
France, of cancer.
She marked the women of my generation by her fight to overcome
her fears, by finding the words to understand her inner truths.
In the 1980s, she said herself “I have loved my life, because it
has been the antithesis of my youth. I told my story, and
through incredible luck, my books developed a large following”.
While the world loses a talented writer, culture loses a woman
of letters and a Hellenist of renown, and women lose a fighter,
who put them in touch with their inner selves to look
courageously at hurts and incurable longings in order to come to
terms with life.
1415
Marie Cardinal loved Quebec and divided her life between France
and Montreal from the early 1960s. Her work survives her and
will continue to spark the imagination of readers by opening the
doors within.
We offer our condolences to her family and friends, to
Jean-Pierre Ronfard and her daughter Alice. Quebec has lost a
great friend.
* * *
MEDICALERT MONTH
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and the people of
Canada that the month of May has been designated MedicAlert Month
by the Canadian MedicAlert Foundation.
Over 900,000 Canadians are protected by this universally
recognized identification and emergency medical information
service.
It is estimated that one person in five in Canada has a medical
problem or an allergy of which people should be informed in the
event of a medical emergency.
The MedicAlert service ensures that people at risk are quickly
identified in a medical emergency and that emergency health care
providers have immediate access to secure personal and medical
information.
Let us offer our best wishes for a successful public awareness
campaign to the Canadian MedicAlert Foundation.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we now know why the government does
not want to table a budget for two years. The economists who are
doing work for the finance minister are actually saying that
government spending is heading us toward a deficit. One
economist has even said that the government just never added the
numbers together. This is incredible.
Could the Prime Minister please tell us how he allowed his
finance minister to mishandle the finances of this nation so
badly that we are now approaching a deficit?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is probably the easiest question I have had in a
long time.
It is the first time in the history of Canada that we have had
four or five surpluses in a row. It is the first time in 40
years that we have paid the debt three years in a row. It is the
first time in history that the interest rates have gone down
under the stewardship of the Minister of Finance, and myself of
course, from 11.5% to 6%, and of course it will carry on.
Let us talk about spending. When we came to power in 1993-94
the government was spending $121 billion. Seven years later we
are not yet back to that.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he can laugh all he wants. The
Liberals laughed during the last election when we pointed out the
numbers that said we were headed toward a deficit. They told the
voters that we were not headed toward a deficit. Their own
economists are now saying that we are headed toward a deficit. It
is no joke. They can laugh all they want. Now we see that the
full range of promised tax cuts is in jeopardy.
Will the Prime Minister break his promise on tax cuts like he
did on GST and like he did with his promise on the ethics
counsellor?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the majority of the tax cuts were implemented on January
1 this year. The rest will be implemented. We are predicting
that we will have balanced budgets for years to come. No one can
know if in three, five or ten years from now there may be a major
recession. However the way we have handled the finances of this
nation since 1993 has been a huge success.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, these economists say that we are
headed toward a deficit even without a downturn. Every taxpayer
in the country knows that as the government approaches its year
end the spending spree really goes crazy.
I will remind the finance minister and the Prime Minister that
it is not their money they are blowing out the door, it is the
money of taxpayers. That is exactly why the auditor general
asked who was minding the store.
Could the President of the Treasury Board tell us if there are
any new spending controls being put in place to protect us from
the deficit we are headed toward and to protect us from these
unaccountable, unbudgeted, incompetent binge spenders? Are there
any controls in place?
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just explained that we started in 1993 and, excluding
the payment on interest, it was $121 billion. We reduced it by
20% during the difficult years that we had. We have increased it
slowly since that time. We are not back yet to where we were in
1993-94. Of course we still have problems in Canada but we have
a program: reduction of the debt, reduction of taxes and spending
for some of the problems that exist in society that we do
recognize on this side.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the announcement today that another
Canadian company and Ottawa valley employer, Mitel Corporation,
will be laying off 430 workers rather than adding the 300 workers
it planned on two months ago tells us that the government's luck
has run out in relying on the Americans to pull us through the
current downturn.
How many people have to lose their jobs before this government
takes concrete action?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that when any Canadian loses his or
her job it is a matter of considerable concern to the government.
The fact is that there is a slowdown in the United States and a
slowdown in the high tech industry and the telecommunications
industry. That is where these job losses are taking place.
I would simply ask the Ottawa area member to tell us what measures
she thinks the Canadian government should take to make the
American telecommunications sector buy more Canadian companies.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, unemployed Canadians want jobs, not
excuses. It is not good enough for this government to say that
there are adjustments or changes in the U.S. economy or the
technology sector that account for this change.
How long will the parents of Canada's best and brightest have to
say goodbye to their children as they seek work elsewhere?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us take a look at what is happening in the Canadian
economy domestically.
It was announced yesterday that housing starts in this country
are going to achieve their highest level ever. They are up 7.5%.
Fundamentally, it is the judgment that is placed by economists
outside this country on what has happened in this country. The
IMF has said the policy positions that we have put in place are
exactly the ones that are required. The OECD has said the same
thing. Last week the Economist intelligence unit moved
Canada up two places to third place among the best places in the
world in which to invest.
* * *
[Translation]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in the House, the solicitor general said that the
immunity for police officers to commit illegal acts granted by
the bill introduced by his colleague in justice “will not be
limited only to organized crime”.
This is likely to pave the way for abuses such as those
committed by the RCMP against the sovereignist movement back in
the 1970s, with the barn burnings.
Could the Minister of Justice tell us whether she shares the
position of the solicitor general and, if not, whether she
intends to limit the immunity granted to police officers solely
to investigations into organized crime?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a critical new tool for the
police and it is not a blank cheque. The bill outlines strict
limits and controls and it also has direct political
accountability.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
when it comes to policy, this is disturbing. What
we are asking for is for this to apply only in connection with
organized crime. Each time the solicitor general is asked a
question about investigations, he says he does not interfere in
them.
Yet this time he is the one, when all is said and done, who will
decide whether police officers can commit a crime. That is what
is disturbing.
Does the Minister of Justice not agree that it would be far
simpler and far more law abiding for the decision to be made by a
judge, as it is with electronic surveillance? Will she shoulder
her responsibilities? She is the one to determine this, so will
she respond?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything my
colleague, the solicitor general, has said. I emphatically
disagree with the leader of the Bloc that this is an appropriate
role for the judiciary. What he fails to understand is that to
involve the judiciary in this kind of role would lead to their
involvement in the investigative stage of crime in a way that
violates the traditions of our democracy.
1425
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
bill on organized crime provides that the police will ultimately
have to obtain authorization from the solicitor general or the
minister of public security to commit criminal acts when they
infiltrate groups, whether or not these groups are involved in
organized crime.
Will the minister acknowledge that this approach is contrary to
the traditional arrangement among the legislative branch, the
executive branch and the judiciary and that it could minimize the
role of the judiciary, which is to protect the rights of the
public against potential political abuse?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have adopted the approach
that we have to ensure that the judiciary is not involved in an
inappropriate way in the investigative stage of crime, thereby
ensuring that they continue to play their role as the ultimate
protectors of Canadians' rights and freedoms.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
they are saying that in the case of electronic eavesdropping
the role of the judiciary is inappropriate.
Would she accept the criticism of this approach by the Barreau
du Québec and the Canadian Bar Association, which consider it
totally arbitrary to have the solicitor general provide the
authorization rather than a judge, as is done obviously in the
case of electronic eavesdropping?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said and as the hon.
member should know, our tradition has been and, as far as we are
concerned on this side of the House, will continue to be to keep
the investigative phase and the judicial phase separate and
apart. To do that which the member suggests would radically
change the balance that has been part of our legal tradition.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the
mid-eighties the U.S. proposed star wars I. Today we are facing
another star wars proposal. It is the same madness.
The Prime Minister says that he is trying to make up his mind.
Let me help by reminding the Saint-Maurice member of what he
said about star wars on March 22, 1985, and I quote:
Can we have the Government's assurance that the Canadian people
and the Canadian Parliament will not be associated with the star
wars project...? That is what we want from the Government.
Could the Prime Minister answer his own question?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as we have said, there is no program yet by the American
government. It has told us that it will consult with us before
making a decision. We said that this is the best way to approach
the problem because it has promised that we will be consulted.
It would be very easy just to say no and sit back, but I think
that by being with the Americans in negotiations and discussion
we can influence the decision rather than be on the outside.
There are other leaders in Europe, in Russia and in China who
want to have a dialogue. We want to be part of that dialogue.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with
this Liberal leader, where one stands and what one says depends
on where one sits.
Listen to what today's Prime Minister asked Brian Mulroney in
March 1985, and I quote again:
What has changed the Prime Minister's mind? Could he explain
why he does not have the guts to do as Brian Mulroney did and
just say no to star wars?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is some fundamental difference in the position
then and today.
In the proposition proposed so far by the Americans, there is a
huge unilateral reduction of nuclear weapons by the Americans. It
is a positive sign.
As far as what they will do with the new system, we do not know
exactly. We want to have a dialogue, just like the Russians are
willing to have a dialogue, and the Europeans and so on.
Yesterday I spent some time with some people who are working on
disarmament. They are encouraging Canadians to participate in
the dialogue because they think that—
The Speaker: The right hon. member for Calgary Centre.
* * *
[Translation]
AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary-Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government continues to reject the requests made by the Bloc
Quebecois to table the lease between Consolidated Bathurst and
161341 Canada Inc. regarding the lot on which the Auberge
Grand-Mère is located.
The property registry indicates that the lease was not
cancelled. Nor was it cancelled in the bill of sale signed by
Consolidated Bathurst and Yvon Duhaime.
1430
Will the Prime Minister tell us if, after he was sworn in, the
rent continued to be paid by his company to Consolidated or to
Yvon Duhaime?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we answered all these questions. Once again, the hon. member is
fishing.
I sold my interests on November 1, 1993. Under the lease, the
rent was $1 per year. I do not know what happened after I left,
but I do know that Consolidated Bathurst sold directly to Mr.
Duhaime. It never sold it to the golf corporation in which I had
an interest before I became Prime Minister.
[English]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
there has been a mysterious outbreak of alleged forgeries in the
Grand-Mère loan file at the Business Development Bank. On Monday
the minister refused to say why some of those forgeries are sent
to the RCMP for investigation and others are not.
My question is in regard to the general file that has been kept
by the BDC, a file that under the law should be available for
scrutiny by the RCMP, the information commissioner and
parliament. Could the Prime Minister tell the House if any
documents have been taken out of that file or if any documents
have been destroyed?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the file is with the Business Development Bank. The
Business Development Bank has turned the problem over to the RCMP
and the RCMP is doing its job.
* * *
[Translation]
PARLIAMENTARIANS
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as a
result of the actions by the member for Scarborough Southwest,
the 75% of voters who did not vote Liberal are worried.
Can the Prime Minister assure Canadians that none of them will
not receive second class treatment by this government?
The Speaker: Judging by his preamble, I wonder if the question
relates to government business. I have doubts, but the Right
Hon. Prime Minister may reply.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I spoke with the member in question yesterday and this morning he
has issued a statement of apology and an offer to work with the
veteran in question, who has moreover already been phoned by the
veterans affairs minister offering help with his case.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the pattern here is pretty obvious. Vote Liberal and
you can get help from your MP. Vote Liberal and there might be
money for your business. Do not vote Liberal and you are just
shunted aside.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Most Canadians consider
that to be patronage. Will the Prime Minister just simply stop
this activity now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, members are very diligent in work for their
constituents, but I remember that about a year and a half ago in
the House of Commons when we were debating the problem of the
HRDC some members on the other side said it was a matter of
principle for them not to help anyone get a grant from the
Government of Canada. I remember that it was said by members on
the other side.
In the case of the member for Scarborough Southwest, he
apologized and he offered to help. The Minister of Veterans
Affairs made sure that the person in question received an offer
of help no later than yesterday. I am happy that the situation
has been restored to normality.
* * *
[Translation]
URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last fall the federal Liberals campaigned against
municipal mergers, admitting as soon as the election was over,
however, that they could do nothing about them.
In February, the Minister of Transport said that the
constitution should be changed to bring it into line with the
realities of urbanization in Canada. Yesterday, the Prime
Minister announced the creation of a task force to develop a
federal urban policy.
Since the constitution clearly states that municipal affairs are
a provincial jurisdiction, how can the government justify
creating this task force? Is this not yet another example of
underhanded centralization?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the federal government has an important role to play with respect
to municipalities.
There is the infrastructure program, for example. We are
helping the municipalities. They are very glad to have our help.
We are helping them in many other areas, such as housing. Let
us take the situation in Montreal. The bridges that cross the
St. Lawrence River are a federal responsibility.
It is perfectly normal for us to have a role to play. Unlike
the members of the Bloc Quebecois, we do not have our heads in
the sand.
1435
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is true that they do not have their heads in the
sand, but they are poking their noses into all sorts of matters
that do not concern them.
The task force's mandate makes no reference to the jurisdiction
of the provinces and of Quebec with respect to urban issues. As
far as the federal government is concerned, its own constitution
does not need to be respected.
What is the reason for Ottawa's paternalistic and disdainful
attitude towards the provinces? Is it not more Canadian nation
building, fuelled by the social union agreement, which allows the
federal government to interfere in provincial jurisdictions where
it does not belong?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are receiving letters from all the mayors in all provinces of
Canada, including the mayors of Quebec, asking us to help when we
can. We are pleased to do so because our concern is not with
politics at the expense of people, but with helping people at all
levels to the fullest extent possible.
* * *
[English]
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime
Minister. Yesterday's revelations regarding the member for
Scarborough Southwest reflect a pattern we have seen from the
government for quite a while now.
The transitional jobs fund was well known as a subject of
political manipulation. It is clear that TJF applications in the
province of Quebec were subject to vetting by local Liberal MPs.
If there was not a Liberal MP, the Liberal riding associations
passed out Canadians' money.
Why is it that Canadians who do not vote Liberal are considered
second class citizens?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with every MP we help, and we even helped Moose
Mulligan's Pub in the riding of one of the Reform Party members
who was asking the minister to give money, and in many of the
Reform ridings.
We have consulted them and some of them were very happy to see
the Government of Canada helping the local institutions.
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, by directing taxpayer money only at
Liberals and even denying help to an aging veteran, the
government consistently demonstrates a dangerous double standard.
The Prime Minister should be embarrassed by this despicable
incident. He needs to commit to removing the double standard
from all aspects of government operations, including his own
backbench. Will he commit to treating all Canadians—
The Speaker: Order, please. I do not understand how it
can be for the government to respond to the actions of private
members in the House. It is legitimate to put questions to the
government concerning the activities of ministers, but if the
question is going to the activities of another MP it seems to me
it is beyond the competence of the government.
I have very serious reservations about the questions. I will
allow an answer in this case, but I am warning hon. members the
Chair is losing patience on this subject.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say to the member that she was not here at
that time, but everyone knows very well in the House that in
Saskatchewan there was more money in the Reform's ridings than
was distributed in the riding of the minister.
Unfortunately he did not get all the money in his riding because
there was more in the others. The same thing happened in
Alberta, so much more money in the other ridings than those of
the two members from Alberta.
I want to apologize to the two ministers of Alberta that we did
not give them as much money as we gave to the Reform Party, and
it was the same thing in British Columbia.
* * *
[Translation]
SINGLE CURRENCY
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Thomas Courchene, the economist, testified today before the
Standing Committee on Finance. Mr. Courchene expressed his
support for the establishment of a single currency in America and
considered it irresponsible on our part not to give thought to
this issue immediately.
Is the Minister of Finance not in fact being irresponsible by
refusing to give thorough consideration to a monetary union of
the Americas, which could be achieved in ten years, despite him,
despite Canada, and in the opinion of the Governor of the Bank of
Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
eminent economist, Mr. Courchene, is entitled to his opinions. I
however have repeatedly stated the position of the Government of
Canada and of the Bank of Canada, namely that to protect our
economy and economic growth, the Canadian dollar is clearly the
currency we should adopt and keep.
1440
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
instead of continually twisting the words of the Governor of the
Bank of Canada, who said that it will be inevitable in ten
years' time, could the Minister of Finance demonstrate a little
leadership by setting up a real special commission, which would
take an in depth look at this important question, in the manner
of the MacKay commission on reforming Canada's financial
institutions?
It is not simply a matter of being for or against, but of being
ready.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the member could explain something.
How is it that article 14 of Quebec's referendum legislation of
1995 provides clearly, and I quote “The currency having legal
tender in Quebec shall remain the Canadian dollar”?
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the solicitor general told the House that
escapes from our prisons were being taken seriously, but the
numbers tell us a little different story. There are currently
about 926 individuals who have either escaped or are unlawfully
at large from all levels of our institutions.
I would like the solicitor general to turn on that bright cell
door light over there and tell us just exactly how the government
could possibly lose 1,000 prisoners from our prisons.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has made a number of
changes over the last seven years and the escapes from minimum
security institutions have been reduced by 55% in the last seven
years.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that is interesting because we just had seven more
in the month of February. That is a great accomplishment.
Keith Lawrence was recaptured just recently after being on the
lam for thirty years. Lawrence was living under a known alias
and as a matter of fact he was living about an hour's drive from
the prison from which he escaped.
I would like to ask a question of the solicitor general. What
resources could the government commit to keeping these guys in
prison, or maybe he would like to take on a really tough Liberal
tactic and ask them to stay a little longer in prison?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague, like my hon.
colleague yesterday, is not trying to indicate to the House that
there are a number of escapes from maximum or medium security
institutions. In fact in the minimum security institutions, as I
have indicated, we have cut the escapes by 55% over the last
seven years and we will continue to reduce that figure.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Ethiopia and Eritrea reached a formal settlement to their border
war on December 12, 2000. The recent peace settlement has set
the stage for a definitive resolution of the longstanding
animosity between Ethiopians and Eritreans.
As part of the effort to ensure a durable peace between these
countries, the United Nations agreed to deploy a peacekeeping
mission known as UNMEE to the region. Would the Secretary of
State for Africa give the House an update on Canada's efforts to
promote peace in this region?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the UN peacekeeping mission is
doing its best to resolve outstanding differences between the two
sides in that terrible war.
Some of us will be going to Ethiopia and Eritrea next month to
deal with the politicians to try to persuade them to continue to
maintain the peace. There are 450 Canadians who are serving
extremely well in that part of the world, from all reports, and
we should all be grateful to them as Canadians.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one year
ago today the Minister of Transport announced that there would be
more competitive grain handling transportation. In fact he
predicted that the average reduction would be $5.92 a tonne.
Of course we have come nowhere close to that. In Saskatchewan,
for example, it is less than one-tenth, a measly 53 cents a
tonne. Since the bulk of the money did not go to the producers,
my question is very straightforward. Who did it go to?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe that Bill C-34, passed before the last
election, was one of the more successful pieces of legislation in
restoring some equilibrium with respect to pricing of grain on
the prairies.
Under that legislation farmers, the producers, will be receiving
about $175 million in benefits. I believe the figure the hon.
member has calculated is wrong in the sense that he did not
include all the various components of the cost.
Grain is moving. It is moving better than it was before. I am
sure there will be more improvements in the future.
1445
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in fact
the minister promised an 18% reduction. What producers have
received is actually less than 2%.
Most of the money has obviously gone to the railways and the
grain companies. It is a sad commentary, not only on their
commitment but on the commitment of the government, that there
has not been more assistance for the producers. Railway profits
last year of $1.47 billion exceeded all the net farm income for
prairie producers.
Given all this, how can the minister justify the 3.5% increase
in the grain transportation rates which will come into effect on
August 1?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is being highly selective. He is only
quoting the single car rate. He is not taking into account the
rebates and other incentives the railways are offering.
I would ask him to do some mathematics. He will find out that
the savings that we predicted are indeed being realized.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
economists helping the finance minister prepare his economic
statement are warning that Liberal election promises will put
Canada back into deficit in three years.
In a world changing so rapidly and in a country trending back
toward deficits because of new Liberal spending, why does the
finance minister think it is acceptable to have a two year gap
between budgets?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the October statement we brought in not only the
largest tax cuts in Canadian history but we announced one of the
largest debt reductions. Certainly this was a very important
economic statement.
Let me simply challenge the hon. member. The fact is that if
one looks at the economic projections over that five year period
brought in in October and if one looks at the reserves and the
contingency provisions, it is very clear that all spending is
taken care of and that the government will not go back into
deficit.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
From the fall of 1999 to the fall of 2000, viewers of CBC
Newfoundland dropped by more than 50% over the evening news time
slots. Will this be the excuse for CBC to eliminate local news
programming and do through the back door what it was embarrassed
to do through the front door?
Will the minister finally agree with the wishes of rural
Canadians and tell CBC to return to its original news format,
here and now?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the hon. member for his
question. I also want to thank the hon. member and the other
members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for the
excellent review they undertook today in Canadian broadcasting.
It is a good example to all Canadians of how parliamentary
committees can make a difference. I fully expect that this and
many other issues will be deeply reviewed by that committee.
* * *
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are world leaders in materials research,
astronomy and astrophysics.
The decisions on two large scale scientific projects, the long
range plan for astronomy and astrophysics, and the Canadian
neutron facility, are long overdue from the government. Delaying
these decisions further endangers Canada's leadership role and
will cause top quality researchers to look elsewhere for
opportunities.
Will the secretary of state for science and technology
demonstrate leadership and introduce a general fiscal framework
for large scale science and technology projects?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has identified a particularly
significant issue with respect to both science and government
financing.
The kinds of projects that he has referred to tend to come with
very large price tags at unpredictable time periods. It is
important to have a fiscal framework and a planning system that
will accommodate those big ticket, big science projects. The
government is determined to make those decisions based on sound
science, due diligence and fiscal responsibility.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in his December 2000 report, the
former auditor general recommended that the government establish
a single federal authority for accountability purposes for big
science projects that would report annually to parliament.
1450
Canadians want to remain world leaders in science and
technology but they want to ensure their taxpayer dollars are
well spent.
Will the Liberal government let these opportunities slip away,
or will the secretary of state or any of the ministers commit
today to introducing such a single federal authority?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me commend the member, who
is a very active member in committee. He was there today and
has been in every committee. He knows very well that we are now
reviewing that. We had scientists and researchers come
before committee who complimented the government repeatedly on
our investments. They talked about the brain gain as opposed to
the brain drain.
I want to compliment the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance
and the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development
for taking the charge to make Canada stand a cut above the rest.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this week, Quebec's Front commun des personnes assistées sociales
is organizing an event called Foire de la dignité to make the
various levels of government aware of the issue of poverty.
There are still 4.9 million Canadians living in poverty,
including 1.3 million children.
Does the Minister of Justice agree that it is unacceptable on
the part of the federal government to have not yet included in
the Canadian Human Rights Act “social condition” as a prohibited
ground of discrimination, considering that eight provinces have
done so, including Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government takes very seriously the
issues facing those Canadians who live in poverty. That is why I
am very glad to point out that one of the most important ways of
reducing poverty, particularly among Canadian seniors, is our
comprehensive pension structure: CPP, OAS and the guaranteed
income supplement. The government is very committed to them.
Second, the hon. member should look to the work that we have
undertaken with the provinces through the national children's
benefit and through the new agreement on early childhood
development. We know those programs will help us reduce poverty
among children.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would appreciate getting an answer when I ask a
question to a minister on a specific issue.
In his report submitted to the minister on June 21, 2000, former
supreme court justice Gerard La Forest recommended that “social
condition” be added as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
That recommendation was based on the definition developed by
Quebec's human rights commission.
Will the minister follow up on Justice La Forest's recommendation
and include “social condition” as a prohibited ground of
discrimination?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the review of the Canadian
Human Rights Act, undertaken by, among others, the former Mr.
Justice La Forest, made some 160 recommendations.
My department, in conjunction with all other government
departments affected, are reviewing these recommendations. We
will be taking action in a timely fashion.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, at 25 years a car is a bona fide
antique automobile. At 30 years a person can legally
become a senator. At 40 years and counting, the Sea King,
the senior citizen of the Canadian air fleet, barely totters on
while the political procurement nightmare continues.
In critical frontline service for years longer than most that
fly, what will it take to get Sea King replacements: Liberal
Party memberships?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government made
its position known that it wants to procure this important
procurement.
We went out with a letter of interest and, surprisingly, to the
discredit of some critics, we had more interest out there.
A lot of people are interested in this procurement, and we are
working with them. Hopefully in the next few months we will
have a formal request for proposals. We hope to achieve this
major procurement in the time schedule, which we said at the
beginning.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, independent military analysts
disagree with the minister that we are more combat capable than
we were 10 years ago.
Recently Major-General MacKenzie asked a roomful of military
people whether anyone agreed with the minister's claim and not a
single person raised their hand.
With a 40 year old aircraft in frontline duty, capability for
combat and domestic service is suffering.
When will this glaring deficiency end? When will the Sea King be
replaced? When?
1455
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quoting some outdated thinkers, I
must say, of which he is one.
As I have said continuously, until we are able to get the new
helicopter we will make sure that these helicopters, the Sea
Kings, are safe to fly. The United States, the most modern
military in the world, also flies Sea Kings of this vintage. It,
like us, wants to make sure they are safe to fly. If they are
not safe to fly we will not fly them. It is as simple as that.
* * *
FORESTRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
British Columbians care deeply about the environment. This is
why we demand sustainable forest practices.
The American lobby is now charging that Canadian forest
practices are so poor that they amount to a countervailable
subsidy.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
for International Trade. Are these charges really about
environmental protection or are they merely about further trade
protectionism?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the American charges
are patently ludicrous of course.
The truth is that Canada has some of the very best environmental
forestry practices in the world. We only harvest one-half of 1%
of our forests a year. In fact we grow twice as much as what is
harvested.
With a larger commercial forestry than the United States, we
harvest less than half of what the Americans do. A recent
American university study ranked us ahead of the Americans in
forestry practices.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has a habit of ignoring
the interests of western Canadian farmers.
More than two years ago, Mr. Justice Estey completed his report.
One of his key recommendations was to bring competition to the
rail system. Last week the government rejected an application by
two small regional railroads for running rights.
Why does the minister oppose measures that would bring real
benefits to western Canadian farmers?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is asking me to reflect upon a decision
made by the Canadian Transportation Agency to deny running rights
for shortline railways on CN and CP tracks.
I might advise the hon. member that there is a panel that is due
to report to me in July, the Canadian Transportation Act review
panel. There are very prominent people on this panel. They will
be addressing this particular issue, as instructed by parliament
in the debate on Bill C-34.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport's website seems to be more
concerned about pet projects in his own backyard, while the
interests of western Canadian farmers are in dire straits.
When will the government give western Canadian farmers some
meaningful choice by implementing the recommendations of Mr.
Justice Estey?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the whole question of western
grain transportation is exceedingly complex.
What we did in Bill C-34 was start to move to a more competitive
system in the tendering out of contracts by the wheat board. This
particular legislation is working. There is an improvement in
the transportation of grain.
As the review unfolds in the next year and as we bring
forward amendments to the act, the hon. member can address those
concerns in a more meaningful way.
* * *
[Translation]
ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on October 17, Coroner Laberge recommended that the
number of lock workers at the St. Catharines locks be increased
from three to four, in order to avoid regrettable accidents such
as the one on June 1, 2000, in which a woman in her seventies
lost her life.
Will the Minister of Transport confirm in the House that he will
require the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, as he is
allowed to do under the management agreement, to review its
downsizing and safety policy, the goal of which is to reduce from
three to two the number of staff performing control and tying
down activities at the 13 locks it operates in Quebec and in
Ontario, including the ones in St. Catharines?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a question of management by the St. Lawrence
Seaway corporation. Transport Canada's responsibility is to
review safety and to ensure that we are complying with all the
standards.
In this case, there is no reason to question the decision of St.
Lawrence Seaway management.
* * *
1500
[English]
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there has been a lot of media coverage on parliamentary
reform over the last few days.
Could the government House leader tell us what steps the
government is taking to make the House of Commons an even better
institution for Canadians?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since 1993 the government has
been working tirelessly in co-operation with all other political
parties to modernize the institution of parliament.
We have given greater involvement to members of parliament in
the budgetary process. We are sending more bills to committee
before second reading. We increased research budgets for all
political parties. We modernized the report stage of bills. We
have an all party committee working on modernizing the rules of
the House, and we have only just begun.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is a wonder he can get out of bed in the morning.
The situation at the Sydney tar ponds is critical. Families
there have been exposed to high levels of toxins resulting in
shocking rates of cancer, birth defects and miscarriages. The
health minister's position is about as murky and malodorous as
the sludge in Sydney.
Elizabeth May continues her hunger strike outside and
demonstrations continue in Nova Scotia protesting the lack of
action.
Will the Minister of Health give his government's firm
commitment to provide financial resources necessary to
permanently relocate those afflicted residents of Whitney Pier,
Nova Scotia?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government has for many years supported a community based
approach through the joint advisory group working on this issue
in the community itself. That process is continuing.
The Government of Canada has provided money to make sure it
succeeds. We stand behind that process with the people of Sydney
and the Government of Nova Scotia.
* * *
[Translation]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of hon. members
to the presence in our gallery of His Excellency Nassirou Sabo,
the Republic of Niger's minister of foreign affairs, co-operation
and African integration.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): It being Thursday, I would like to ask the hon.
House leader for the government if he has the business for the
rest of today, tomorrow and next week.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the first
opportunity I have had to respond to the hon. member in that
capacity. Let me begin by congratulating her on the position she
holds.
This afternoon we will continue consideration of Bill S-11,
followed by Bill S-16 respecting money laundering. As a matter
of fact the debate on Bill S-11 may have collapsed just before
question period. That means we will start with Bill S-16
respecting money laundering, followed by Bill C-14, the shipping
legislation. Afterward, if there is any time left, we will
resume debate on Bill C-10 regarding marine parks.
On Friday we will begin consideration of Bill C-22 respecting
income tax amendments at report stage and third reading. We will
then return to the list I have just described should we not have
completed Bill C-14, Bill C-10 or Bill S-16, for that matter.
1505
On Monday next, if necessary, we will resume consideration of
Bill C-22, followed by Bill C-17, the innovation foundation bill,
at third reading. We will then return to the list that I
described a while ago.
On Tuesday it is my hope that we will be able to commence and
hopefully complete the third reading of Bill C-26, the tobacco
taxation bill, as well as the second reading of Bill C-15, the
criminal code.
Next Wednesday it is my intention to call Bill C-7, the youth
justice bill at report stage. We also hope to deal next week
with Bill S-3 respecting motor vehicles, Bill C-11, the
immigration legislation, if reported, and Bill C-24, organized
crime. As well there has been some discussion among political
parties and hopefully we can deal with Bill S-24 respecting the
aboriginal community of Kanesatake at all stages in the House of
Commons, provided that it has been reported to the House from the
other place.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[English]
The Speaker: Order, please. I have the honour to
inform the House that a communication has been received as
follows:
Government House
Ottawa
May 10, 2001
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Ian Binnie,
Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as
Deputy of the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate
Chamber today, the 10th day of May, 2001, at 4:00 p.m., for the
purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth
Deputy Secretary
Policy, Program and Protocol
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
Hon. David Collenette (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that Bill S-16, an act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money
Laundering) Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
speak today at second reading of Bill S-16, an act to amend the
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act. This bill would
improve upon its predecessor, Bill C-22, which received royal
assent last June. That bill was needed for several reasons.
Allow me to take a moment to review some of the background to
that bill.
[Translation]
As hon. members know, money laundering in recent years has
become more and more of a problem in Canada. By definition,
money laundering is the process by which dirty money from
criminal activities is converted into assets that cannot be
easily traced back to their illegal origins.
[English]
Today's open borders provide criminals with a daily opportunity
to launder millions of dollars in illegal profits with the
intention of making the profits look legitimate. These
activities can undermine the reputation and integrity of
financial institutions and distort the operation of financial
markets if adequate measures are not in place to deter money
laundering.
To illustrate the magnitude of the problem, it is estimated that
between $5 billion and $17 billion in criminal proceeds are
laundered through Canada each year. A significant portion of
this laundered money is linked to profits from drug trafficking.
1510
Money laundering became a crime in Canada back in 1989. Prior
to Bill C-22 Canada had many of the building blocks of an
anti money laundering program in place within the criminal code
and the previous Proceeds of Crime (money laundering) Act.
However the government realized that much more needed to be done
to combat the problem.
[Translation]
On one hand, the government was being pressured by law
enforcement agencies for better enforcement tools. At the same
time, on the international front, Canada was subject to scrutiny
because of perceived gaps in our anti money laundering
arrangements.
[English]
In 1997 the 26 member financial action task force on money
laundering, the FATF of which Canada is a founding member, found
Canada to be lacking in certain key areas and strongly encouraged
us to bring our anti money laundering regime in line with
international standards.
As a result of pressure here and internationally, the government
brought in Bill C-22 in the last parliament. That legislation
strengthened the previous statute by adding measures to improve
the detection, prevention and deterrence of money laundering in
Canada. Bill C-22 contained three distinct components which
enabled Canada to live up to its international commitments.
First, the bill provided for the mandatory reporting of
suspicious financial transactions.
Second, the legislation required that large cross-border
movements of cash or monetary instruments like travellers' cheques
be reported to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
Third, Bill C-22 provided for the establishment of the Financial
Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, FINTRAC,
which came into being on July 5, 2000. An independent agency,
FINTRAC is set out to receive and analyze reports and to pass on
information to law enforcement authorities if it has reasonable
grounds to suspect that information would be relevant to a money
laundering investigation or prosecution.
[Translation]
I should also mention that there are safeguards in place to
ensure that the collection, use and disclosure of information by
FINTRAC are strictly controlled. These safeguards are supported
by criminal penalties for any unauthorized use or disclosure of
personal information under FINTRAC's control.
[English]
FINTRAC is also subject to the federal Privacy Act and its
protections.
Bill C-22 was welcomed last year by members on all sides of the
House for several reasons.
First, it responded to domestic law enforcement communities
needs for additional means of fighting organized crime by more
effectively targeting the proceeds of crime.
Second, it responded to Canada's need to meet its international
responsibilities in the fight against money laundering. It did
so while providing safeguards to protect individual privacy.
In spite of these accomplishments, several of our hon.
colleagues in the other place believed the act could be
strengthened even further and could benefit from additional
amendments. The government agreed and the result is Bill S-16,
the legislation before us today.
Let me take a moment and provide some background.
[Translation]
When Bill C-22 was studied by the standing Senate committee on
banking, trade and commerce last spring, members of the committee
indicated that while they supported the bill the legislation
would benefit from amendments to certain provisions.
[English]
The Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions
made a commitment at that time to clarify the act by including
several of the changes requested by the committee. The result
was Bill S-30 which was introduced last fall and subsequently
died on the order paper when the election was called. It was
reintroduced in this parliament as Bill S-16.
The amendments in this bill relate to four specific issues. The
first deals with the process for claiming solicitor-client
privilege during an audit by FINTRAC. The agency is authorized
to conduct audits to ensure compliance with the act.
The current legislation contains provisions that apply when
FINTRAC conducts a compliance audit of a law office. FINTRAC
must provide a reasonable opportunity for a legal counsel to
claim solicitor-client privilege on any document it possesses at
the time of the audit.
1515
[Translation]
The proposed measure in Bill S-16 pertains to documents in the
possession of someone other than a lawyer. It requires that that
person be given a reasonable opportunity to contact a lawyer so
that the lawyer could make a claim of solicitor-client privilege.
[English]
Another measure would ensure that nothing in the act would
prevent the federal court from ordering the director of FINTRAC
to disclose certain information as required under the Access to
Information Act or the Privacy Act.
The amendment would ensure that the recourse of individuals to
the federal court would be fully respected. Indeed this was the
intent of the original bill, Bill C-22.
The third amendment more precisely would define the kinds of
information that could be disclosed to police and other
authorities specified in the legislation. It would clarify that
the regulations setting out this information could only cover
similar identifying information regarding the client, the
institution and the transactions involved.
Finally, Bill S-16 would ensure that all reports and information
in FINTRAC's possession would be destroyed after specific
periods. Information that has not been disclosed to police or
other authorities must be destroyed by FINTRAC after five years.
Information that has been disclosed must be destroyed after eight
years.
Bill C-22 introduced sweeping changes to Canada's anti money
laundering regime. First, it introduced new reporting
requirements which would result in more reliable, timely and
consistent reporting. Second, it introduced centralized
reporting through FINTRAC which allowed much needed and much more
sophisticated analysis.
[Translation]
Third, successful prosecutions that benefit from analysis by
FINTRAC can lead to court ordered forfeiture of the proceeds of
criminal activities.
[English]
Above all, these benefits would be achieved in a way that
respects the privacy of individuals. The additional amendments
contained in Bill S-16 would only serve to further strengthen and
improve this statute.
Irrespective of party affiliation, I am confident that all hon.
members will fully support the bill. I urge members to give the
legislation quick and speedy passage so that we may proceed to
other items on the government's legislative agenda.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order to seek unanimous consent to revert to routine
proceedings for the purpose of tabling a committee report.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to
revert to tabling of reports by committees?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill
S-16. It is long overdue, and deals with one of the most
important aspects of crime in the country today.
It is estimated that a majority of crime today relates to
organized crime. Bill S-16, an act to amend the Proceeds of
Crime (Money Laundering) Act is one we support.
For a long time the Canadian Alliance has worked hard to
influence the government to address in a very reasonable way the
large problem that affects every single riding in our country.
The extent and depth of the problem of organized crime is
extensive.
Organized criminals not only take advantage of the existing laws
and working above the law, but also working beneath society and
below the law. They hide behind the law when it is advantageous
and flaunt it when it serves their benefit.
Historically many people may consider organized crime as the
biker on a Harley Davidson, engaging in prostitution, drug abuse
and in the buying and selling of drugs. Organized crime is much
more than that. It is a national and transnational problem which
will require a co-ordinated effort not only within our country
but also among nations. Organized crime gangs have formed
transnational groups that are capitalizing on the globalized
markets in our country.
Organized crime gangs deal not only with the traditional forms
of money laundering, drugs, prostitution and the violence that
goes with that, they also deal with a considerable amount of
white collar crime.
That white collar crime involves setting up businesses and
engaging in illegal activities.
1520
Organized crime groups set up shell companies that profess to
deal with the cleanup of environmentally toxic areas. They offer
their services to businesses. They tell them that they will take
their waste products and dispose of them sensibly. What they do
is take those waste products, charge the company and then dump
them illegally, polluting our land, our air and our water.
They also take the moneys from things like prostitution, drugs
and weapons. They also take money from trafficking endangered
species, which is second in the entire world in the trafficking
of illegal products. That money is put it into illegal
businesses.
The problem is how do we deal with these organized crime groups?
Police officers have told us that we have to go after the money.
If we can take away the money underpinnings of international
groups then we will crush them.
Here is a case in point. In the United States a crime gang took
those moneys and bought a casino. That was followed up and the
casino was apprehended. The moneys from the sale of that
property went into fighting crime.
The same thing happens in countries like Ireland, South Africa
and south of the border. However, to understand why this is so
important, we have to look at the impact of organized crime in
our society today.
In Canada it is estimated that it costs us $5 billion to $9
billion a year, which includes insurance, cellular phone, credit
card and telemarketing fraud, and much more. Between $5 billion
and $17 billion a year is laundered in Canada. That is why we
are known as a haven for organized crime.
Imagine $5 billion to $17 billion being laundered in our
country. That is a huge amount of money. It impacts our civil
society in ways of which we are unaware. The cost of this
impacts upon all of us. It impacts our insurance costs, because
of motor theft. There is also securities fraud. This is not to
mention the violence generating effects of the illicit drug trade
which has had such a profound and negative impact upon our
society. That is why we support this bill.
I came back from Colombia in February. There are enormous
effects as a direct result of the illicit drug trade in that part
of South America.
Canada is poised for a flood of pure, cheap heroin that will
undercut the price of cocaine. This will mean that on the
streets there will be a higher number of addicts, a greater
number of overdoses and deaths, not to mention the increasing
incidence of the transmission of hepatitis B, C and HIV among the
drug users. That is why many of us have asked the government to
deal with drug use in a more pragmatic and less punitive way by
looking at models in Europe which can be employed here. In fact
I had put forth a private member's bill to that effect.
Another thing the government could do is employ RICO-like
amendments which have been in the United States since 1970. These
amendments would allow the government better opportunities to go
after and apprehend civil property, civil forfeiture, as well as
criminal forfeiture upon conviction of the properties that are
used or acquired through illegal uses.
I also want to take a moment to look at the international
aspects of organized crime. In many of the hot spots around the
world, from Nigeria to Somalia, Central Africa, Sierra Leone,
Colombia, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Venezuela, we can see the
impact and the integration of organized crime in society,
particularly in societies that are in a very tenuous place.
When the price of oil went down in Nigeria, organized crime
insinuated itself into the country. It has become a haven for
the trafficking of cocaine, heroin and diamonds.
1525
I have had a chance to visit South Africa some 12 times since
1986. That country made some good changes, but unfortunately has
suffered from a breakdown in law and order. Organized crime
gangs saw an opportunity to insinuate themselves into a country
which was trying to get on its feet. As a result, South Africa
has become a haven for organized crime and for the trafficking of
contraband, particularly drugs.
This is a very serious problem because it destabilizes these
countries. Look in the heart of darkness of Africa where the
blood of tens and hundreds of thousands of people has been
spilled. We can see how mercenary groups, in conjunction with
organized crime groups functioning in a transnational way, have
used diamonds to further their ends of making money. However it
has also contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
innocent people and the furthering of conflict in these areas.
The point I am making is that while the actions of organized
crime are known, they are not only a domestic problem, they are a
transnational and international problem. These actions also
contribute to the furthering of conflicts in some of the worst
parts of the world. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people are
killed in areas where democratic rules and the rule of law with
respect to human rights are simply absent.
Organized crime groups have no compunction whatsoever in
insinuating themselves into conflict that occurs in these areas.
They grasp and capitalize on these problems. In many cases we
think some of these battles are mostly over religion. We see the
issue of Sudan being one of them. However it has more to do with
money.
In Somalia it was looked at as a fight between rival clans. In
effect, a larger part of it had to do with the trafficking of
something called khat, which is a drug. The trafficking, the
influence and involvement of organized crime gangs has a profound
impact upon these conflicts.
This is a great opportunity for the Minister of Finance, who is
the head of G-20 at this point, to try to work with the Bretton
Woods institutions and use them as a lever to address the issue
of organized crime. The IMF should have built in opportunities
to analyze where moneys are going to make sure that organized
crime is not benefiting from it. Similarly, the World Bank and
the other IFIs need to look at where the money is spent to make
sure it is not being channelled into illegal operations.
Russia is a prime case. Billions of dollars of western money
has gone into Russia in good faith to try to stabilize the
economic situation. Unfortunately, a lot of that money has
fallen into the hands of the oligarchs that have ruled a large
chunk of that country for far too long. I know Mr. Putin is
working hard to deal with that.
I can only encourage the Minister of Finance to work with the
international community to implement levers which will ensure
that moneys being spent are used for proper monetary and fiscal
stability in these countries and are not being siphoned away by
individuals who are thugs in business suits.
In closing, I again emphasize that organized crime takes a big
bite out of our economy and has many seen and unseen negative
effects upon Canada. We support the bill and encourage the
government to strengthen it as time goes on, by implementing
methods to have criminal and civil forfeiture for individuals who
are engaging in crime and by implementing RICO-like amendments in
this country. We should work with the international community to
ensure that similar laws are implemented so we can have a
transnational, multifactorial approach to this scourge among us.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We
have our communications straightened out now between the parties
and if you would seek it, I think you would now find unanimous
consent to revert to daily routine of business, presenting
reports from committees, so that the finance committee report could be
presented by the member for Vaughan—King—Aurora.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to
presentation of committee reports?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1530
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the
Standing Committee on Finance regarding its order of reference of
Friday, April 27 in relation to Bill C-26, an act to amend the
Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax
Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of tobacco. The committee
has considered Bill C-26 and reports the bill with amendment.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-16, an
act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to
speak to Bill S-16, an act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money
Laundering) Act.
First, let me remind the House that proceeds of crime covers
anything seized that was, in the court's opinion, used to commit
an offence or gained as a result of the offence.
This is just one piece of legislation among many others that
were passed. Our society is now facing a major problem that has
grown in scope in the last few years, with organized crime
becoming a complex, international and ever changing industry that
goes beyond traditional crime.
We now have technology based crime and international crime. For
instance, drug traffic is run just like any other business,
except for the fact that what is being traded is illegal, and of
course new technologies are also used to commit crime.
As citizens, we often feel helpless. On the news, we hear about
events, about people who are accused and about crimes, and we are
not quite sure about the cause. The whole community wants
governments to address this problem.
We in the Bloc Quebecois can be proud of the courage shown by
our leader and our team, particularly during the last election
campaign. We have made proposals and prodded the government into
finally taking action. I think the leader of the Bloc Quebecois
deserves credit for that, as well as those members who work on
justice issues, including the member for Berthier—Montcalm, the
member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert and the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. They lead initiatives aimed at fighting
organized crime, directly or indirectly, and its consequences.
Organized crime has an impact on poverty. People who are most
vulnerable make easier targets. They are more easily used. We
must be aware of the fact that the related social and economic
costs for our society are considerable.
The bill before us amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money
Laundering) Act. The act it is based on needs certain
adjustments, which are contained in this bill. We hope they will
enable us to fight organized crime more effectively.
Clause 1 of the bill says that reports and all information will
be retained for five years, which is what the current act says,
but then it sets out the circumstances under which three years
will be added to that period.
The retention period will thus be eight years, when the
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
passes information either to law enforcement authorities or to
the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the Canadian Security and
Intelligence Service, the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration, an agency in a foreign state or an international
organization with a mandate similar to the centre's.
In other words, adding three more years will make documents
available for a longer period of time. They will be retained
longer.
1535
In the case of crimes requiring time consuming investigations or
the retrieval of evidence that might have been seized in the
course of a previous investigation, this gives an added
opportunity to do so.
Moreover, the addition to section 54(1) of the Proceeds of Crime
(Money Laundering) Act provides that each report received and all
information received or collected shall be destroyed on the
expiry of the applicable period.
This clause clarifies certain provisions regarding the retention
and destruction of information. This does not raise any
particular issue, but it is important to note that such is the
intent of the lawmakers that we are, and that this type of
amendment was necessary to make the act more efficient in the
fight against organized crime.
Clause 3 came about as the result of the realization that under the
current act the federal court had no jurisdiction in this
matter. With this amendment, no provision of the act will prevent
the federal court from ordering the head of the centre to
disclose information in accordance with the Access to Information
Act and the Privacy Act, thus making the act easier to enforce.
This clause is yet another one to make enforcement of the act
easier and more effective.
We are also told that the spirit of the act already allowed the
federal court to play its role in that regard.
Now, by amending the text, we are making sure that not only the
spirit but also the letter of the act allows that. This may
prove very useful when dealing with organized crime, since those
who are charged often have very good defence lawyers. Of course,
it is the role of these lawyers to make sure that their clients
are properly defended, but we must make sure that it is not
possible, through some flaw, to miss the main issue when taking
someone to court or preparing evidence. This is also the purpose
of that clause.
Then there is a clause dealing with the whole issue of
solicitor-client privilege.
We have a problem with that clause because any interpretation of
the said clause, in its current wording, would be pure
speculation. This provision is very vague. It does not specify
its objective. We were told that it was included because of the
concerns expressed by accountants, who wanted a privilege
similar to the solicitor-client privilege granted to lawyers.
This clause will have to be reworded to make it easier to
understand. Some work will have to be done in that regard,
probably in committee, to come up with useful amendments.
In conclusion, the first three clauses of the bill include
amendments designed to clarify the intent of the provisions they
amend, and these amendments do not change the substance of the
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act.
However, as I just mentioned, there is a problem with clause 4.
We simply cannot figure out this provision. It is very vague. I
think we would be better off with no provision than one
that is worded like this one.
Still, the best option might be to rewrite the clause so that
we can see if it is an amendment that can be used in the fight
against money laundering.
Obviously, we in the Bloc Quebecois were in favour of the
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, and in particular we
were behind the elimination of the $1,000 bill. This was called
for, supported, debated and in the end successfully defended by
the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier. The government
finally moved on this.
In my opinion, the Bloc Quebecois record is impeccable. We
have proposed several concrete measures to improve the
situation, to ensure that the state is properly equipped to
fight organized crime. We hope there are still other tools to
be laid on the table in order to ensure that we end up with
everything required to do away with this scourge, to eliminate
this situation, and to ensure that within this society there is
less and less of a parallel universe and a parallel economy,
which penalizes our entire society by the way it operates.
1540
For all these reasons, we are going to vote in favour of Bill
S-16, on condition that clause 4 is clarified for the reasons I
have already given.
I therefore invite the House to support this bill which will, as
soon as possible, enable the departmental staff concerned to do
their job more diligently and with more appropriate tools, so
that results can be attained. This is but one of the tools
necessary to fight organized crime, but it is a useful one.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate on Bill S-16.
The New Democratic Party supported Bill C-22 in the previous
parliament, which was approved and received royal assent. We
voiced a number of concerns as it went through committee stage
and amendments. We are glad to see that some of those concerns
are being addressed in Bill S-16.
Members of the NDP like other members of the House are extremely
concerned about the impact of organized crime on our local
communities and across the country. There is no question that it
is something that is very sophisticated. It is very pervasive
and has a huge impact on many people's lives.
Personally, as well as in terms of financial institutions and
various businesses, we are all very familiar with cases that do
come to public light. They give us a glimpse of the kind of
operation that exists outside the law in terms of money
laundering, the profits from organized crime and how they are
dealt with.
For most people it is a fairly frightening glimpse when we look
at a system that is so complex. As in previous legislation the
attempts in this legislation to deal with that sophistication and
to find the appropriate mechanisms to track where money is
flowing, where the proceeds of organized crime are coming from, is
very important.
The NDP put forward some concerns about the original bill. In
any legislation there has to be a balance between a reasonable
right and invasion of privacy. There must be an understanding
that the power of the state is not absolute. When a new agency
is created with far reaching powers we have to be very careful
about how it is set up.
For example, before Bill C-22 was approved we and a number of
witnesses who came forward to debate the bill expressed concerns
about whether or not there was potential for charter of rights
violations, that the guarantees of reasonable search and seizure
appeared to be at risk.
We were also very concerned about the possible pressures there
would be on consumers. Needless to say, there would probably be
a significant cost in setting up any sort of regime to track and
communicate suspicious transactions. I do not know if that has
been spelled out, but it seems to me that it would be enormous in
terms of what the responsibilities would be for financial
institutions and how that would get passed on to law abiding
consumers.
Members of the NDP were also very concerned about the fact that
the bill did not address what is often referred to as white
collar crimes or technology based crimes. Unfortunately this is
a huge area that is booming. We are all very familiar that the
growth of the Internet and computers in general, credit card
fraud, telephone fraud, stock market manipulation and computer
break-ins are all things that can be characterized as technology
based crimes or white collar crimes.
There is no question that there is a very serious element within
that which is perpetrated by organized crime. It seems to us
that the original bill did not and the legislation before us
today does not adequately address the concerns that surely must
be addressed in terms of technology based crimes.
1545
In the debate today I heard a number of members talk about
different elements of organized crime and the impact they have.
The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca spoke about the drug trade
and its human impact. I will spend a couple of minutes speaking
about that as well because it strikes me that there is a
contradiction.
On the one hand, as we should, we go to great lengths to deal
with a legal apparatus and the setting up of a new agency,
FINTRAC, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of
Canada, as it is called, and what a mouthful that is. We go to
great lengths to set up a very elaborate system for tracking
suspicious transactions, trying to trace what has happened and
making sure that there is adequate reporting.
On the other side of that coin in terms of organized crime and
the billions of dollars that are generated illegally through drug
trafficking and drug use and the profits that are made, we do not
pay enough attention to the human costs that are very clearly
evident on our streets, in urban centres and even in smaller
communities across Canada. I have only to look at my own riding
of Vancouver East to see the devastation that happens in an
environment where illegal drug activity is a huge underground
economy.
I believe, and I certainly would echo the comments from the
member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, that we have to pay attention
to that human side. We have to recognize that in some respects
it is the illegality of those substances, heroin or crack cocaine
or other substances, that drives this underground market and in
effect criminalizes addicts when they are on the street with very
few resources. We end up with a community where people are
literally dying on the streets from overdoses.
It strikes me as a horrible irony that while on the one hand we
can somehow relate to this issue from a legislative point of view
by setting up this centre, on the other we cannot relate to this
issue from a human point of view and take the actions that are
necessary to actually reduce the harm of what is happening on our
streets because of these illegal substances.
I would also add that we need a saner, more humane approach to
drug use in Canada and we need to be seriously willing to reform
Canada's drug laws, which have not been reformed for decades. We
have had Senate hearings. We have had debates in the past where
some of these issues have been debated very seriously, but not in
recent times. If we took the time to do that I believe we would
go a long way toward dealing with some of the causes of the
devastation we see on our streets. We could in fact look at the
issue of how organized crime is being driven by this very
lucrative business of drug use.
We could look to the experience of what is happening in Europe,
where the approach has been to medicalize drug use and addiction
instead of criminalizing people. The approach has been to try
to remove the harm from buying drugs on the street. Not only has
there been a huge financial saving in health care costs and
judicial costs, but lives have been saved as well.
I wanted to make that point because it seems to me that we are
missing the boat unless we look at the total picture. We cannot
just say that all this money is coming from organized crime and a
lot of it is coming from drugs unless we are willing to examine
Canada's drug policies and recognize that they need to be
seriously reformed.
1550
For example, even with marijuana we see the stories about grow
operations in the papers all the time. In east Vancouver there
are media reports of various grow busts taking place. We are
talking about multimillion dollar operations. It seems to me
that if we had the courage to examine our drug policy laws and to
seriously look at reform of those laws we would be going a long
way in terms of removing the incentive and the huge opening that
exists for organized crime to become a part of the underground
economy. That is a very important aspect of the debate.
In regard to the bill before us today, I did want to say that
the NDP certainly supports the amendments that are contained in
the bill as a result of the previous bill, Bill C-22. We support
them in principle. Important questions were raised as a result
of Bill C-22. It is notable that there has been a sort of second
look based on the issues raised previously, for example, knowing
how long this new centre would be able to retain the information
it collects and whether there are issues in terms of the balance
between the right to retain information or dispose of it.
Another question was about when and how that information would
be disposed of. If an agency is created, for how long does it
have a right to have that information and in which manner can it
be disposed of? If information is to be disclosed to law
enforcement authorities, how should that be done? Those issues
needed to be more clearly spelled out and we certainly feel that
the present legislation goes some distance to addressing those
concerns put forward by witnesses and by different parties in the
House.
In conclusion, at this time we in the NDP are pleased to
continue our support in principle. We think it is an important
bill. It has obviously had strong support within the House. It
is always good to have a second look based on evidence from
witnesses to make sure that the bill is fine tuned to address
concerns put forward.
I hope as the debate continues that the government will pay
attention to the concerns that are still being expressed. It
seems to me that there is strong general support but some areas
still need to be looked at.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill.
This is a very important piece of legislation and I commend the
previous speakers, including my colleague from the New Democratic
Party. It is interesting to note that many members have picked
up on the fact that those in the other place have served a very
useful purpose in reviewing the legislation and improving upon
the legislation, as is often their wont.
I should indicate at the outset that I will be splitting my time
with the hon. member for Kings—Hants.
Bill S-16 essentially deals with a response to concerns that
were raised by the Senate banking committee. Bill S-16 amends
the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and particularly
focuses on areas of solicitor-client privilege, the disclosure of
information and records retention. This is, of course,
information that is critical in tracing the origins and
whereabouts of potential assets linked to criminal activity. The
money laundering that takes place in Canada is of great concern
to our citizenry and certainly to our law enforcement community.
Money laundering, as the Speaker would know, is a process by
which criminals attempt to conceal profits earned from crime so
that the money appears as if it comes from legitimate sources.
When all traces of the money's criminal origins are erased, the
money can safely be used to buy goods and services.
It is shocking to think that between $5 billion and $17 billion
is laundered in Canada. Of course it is difficult to accurately
assess just how much because the proper authorities are not able
to determine this amount, but it is estimated to be in that
range.
1555
There were shortcomings in the original legislation which Bill
S-16 attempts to correct. Money that is laundered is often
shifted among countries, financial institutions and investments
without a paper trail so that it cannot be traced back to its
origins. With the advancing sophistication of technology,
competent and sophisticated criminals are able to access and
utilize these now boundless abilities to transfer money through
cyberspace, leaving no tangible evidence as to its origins.
Obviously much of this money is obtained by very nefarious means
such as fraud or intimidation. This is the type of money that is
very often directly linked to criminal organizations in Canada
and has been the focus of a number of pieces of legislation and
the focus of considerable debate in recent months and years.
Canada has come under heavy criticism in recent years for being a
nation where criminal organizations are able quite easily to
launder their proceeds of crime. For that reason and that reason
alone, it is incumbent upon us as elected officials and as part
of the federal legislative branch to respond. That is what this
legislation is intended to do, to enhance the existing proceeds
of crime legislation.
The response last spring came in the form of government Bill
C-22, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, which was
passed. Bill C-22 imposed new reporting and record keeping
requirements and created the Financial Transactions and Reports
Analysis Centre of Canada to receive and analyze
information so there would be a focal point, a centre in Canada
where those working in this location would be specifically tasked
to assist law enforcement communities in locating and tracing
proceeds of crime.
Concerns were expressed at that time about the bill by the
privacy commissioner, the Canadian Bar Association and other
groups that appeared before a parliamentary committee. The
Senate banking committee looked into the bill in June 2000 and,
to be quite blunt, was not impressed. The committee felt that
the legislation was considerably flawed and had a number of
shortcomings which it had hoped to remedy. The government
indicated at that time that it was unwilling to entertain
amendments to the legislation because it was too late in June and
the House of Commons had to deal with other bills and indicated
that therefore the Senate might make changes in the future.
Coming forward from that point in June 2000, we know that the
Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions did
give a written undertaking to the committee that certain changes
would be contemplated and would occur in a new bill to be
introduced in the fall. Those changes formed the substance of
Bill S-30 which was introduced in October. Bill S-30 is
identical to Bill S-16 which is currently before us.
As the Speaker and Canadians well know, the entire process in
October was pre-empted by the legacy lust of the Prime Minister
in his decision to put this piece of legislation and other very
useful pieces of legislation aside and toss them in the dustbin
in order to seize his political advantage and call an election.
Beyond the changes that were agreed to in the letter from the
secretary of state to the Senate banking committee, the bill was
then reported with the observation that the government should
consider other amendments. Those amendments would include,
first, further insurance that solicitor-client privilege would be
protected by adding the phrase law office in any place in clause
63 where the term dwelling house appears. This simply expanded
the physical premises that would attach under the legislation.
Second, the government would hold the first review of the act
after three years, not five years, with a five year review to be
held after that. This is essentially an opportunity in the first
instance to look at the fallout from this legislation at an
earlier date and assess the implications after three years.
Finally, the government would require regulations under the act
to be tabled before the committee in the House each year. The
Progressive Conservative Party is very supportive of all attempts
to bring about transparency, both for the public and for
parliament, and to access information that is rightfully to be
placed before Canadians.
1600
This is important in the broader context of trying to rebuild
lost confidence in the process and in this institution. It is
clear that the bill does not include all the changes recommended
by the committee, but it goes a long way to improving the
legislation.
The bill will focus on the following legal issues. The first is
solicitor-client privilege, which is an attempt by individuals to
prevent private information they share with a solicitor from
being made public or in any way disclosed. Bill C-22 only dealt
with instances of solicitor-client privilege involving legal
counsel.
Bill S-16 clarifies that officials of the Financial Transactions
and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada may not examine or copy
documents subject to solicitor-client privilege where the
documents are, and this is the important part, in the hands of
someone else until a reasonable opportunity has been made for the
person to contact legal counsel. The bill would put in place a
safeguard to allow an individual to speak to a lawyer before
documents are seized.
This responds to concerns raised by the Certified General
Accountants Association of Canada. Privacy is something we can
never take lightly. We must always strive to ensure individuals
are protected in their privacy rights and in their business
transactions. However all that must be balanced with the
recognition that there are those who rely upon nefarious means
and complicated schemes to steal from others, rip people off and
engage in blatant activities to take away a person's wealth.
To that end a balance is struck in the legislation. It contains
safeguards and methods for review that allow for a weighing of
evidence to determine whose interests are best being served.
Bill S-16 would allow individuals or the privacy commissioner to
take the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of
Canada to court if they are denied access to their files. There
is therefore a chance for judicial review if there is denial of
access.
Next is disclosure of information. Bill S-16 narrows the range
of information that may be disclosed by the Financial
Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada to the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency, the police, and citizenship and
immigration officials.
After listing the types of documents that could be disclosed
Bill C-22 gave the centre broad power to disclose any information
so designated. The amendment would replace that power with the
power to disclose similar information relating to identification.
Finally, there is record retention. Records not disclosed by
the centre are to be destroyed five years after they are received
or collected. Those which have been disclosed are to be
destroyed eight years after they are received or collected. These
are further safeguards. It may be called fine tuning but it is
important fine tuning nonetheless. The sober second thought of
the Senate has been usefully exercised here.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
credit my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for the
comprehensive nature of his discourse. There simply could be no
questions after such a detailed and articulate speech.
It is with pleasure today that I rise to speak to Bill S-16.
The money laundering issue is of huge importance to Canada.
Earlier today I spoke in the House on corporate governance
issues. It is extraordinarily important to put in place
procedures, agencies and structures to deal with corporate
governance and money laundering issues, issues which are
increasingly global and are forcing governments to be vigilant if
they wish to maintain international credibility.
1605
The estimates of money laundering are difficult to get a handle
on. In Canada some estimates are as low as $5 billion per year
and some are as high as $20 billion per year. That variance
alone speaks to the nature of the problem. We do not know the
full depth and breadth of the issue in Canada but we know we had
better get a handle on it soon. We hope this initiative will
help us do that.
I have spoken of previous incarnations of the legislation and of
my concerns with them. I still have not seen a commitment by the
government to provide the resources to enable the agency to do
its work. I am very concerned about that.
The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, our justice
critic, has spoken about the urgent situation of underfunding and
the resource starved RCMP. With the money laundering agency we
could see the same types of issues.
Organized crime networks today use sophisticated technologies
and have almost unlimited global resources. We must provide the
new agency the resources to be successful in the fight against
money laundering. I have significant concerns in that regard,
particularly given the sophistication of financial instruments
today. There was a time when derivatives were considered
sophisticated financial instruments but we have gone far beyond
that.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[English]
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as
follows:
Mr. Speaker, The Honourable Deputy to the Governor General
desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the
chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
1615
[Translation]
And being returned:
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that
when the House went up to the Senate chamber, Her Excellency the
Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the
royal assent to the following bills:
Bill S-5, an act to amend the Blue Water Bridge Authority
Act—Chapter No. 3.
Bill S-4, an act No. 1 to harmonize federal law with the civil law
of the Province of Quebec and to amend certain Acts in order to
ensure that each language version takes into account the common
law and the civil law—Chapter No. 4.
Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the
Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations—Chapter No. 5.
Bill S-2, an act respecting marine liability and to validate
certain by-laws and regulations—Chapter No. 6.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-16, an
act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
caused a stir with a couple of my remarks but I have never had
that level of dramatic response. It has been another great day
for democracy and a moment in which I take great pleasure in
having participated. My time in the Senate was all too brief, I
may add.
The issues in Bill S-16 of critical importance to me and to our
party pertain to whether the new agency has the resources
necessary to deal with the increasing challenges and the great
level of complexity in the nature of money laundering, the
sophistication of financial instruments, and the almost unlimited
resources of international organized crime. We have to ensure
that we do not simply create an agency with a tremendous level of
responsibility but with very little resources to do what has to
be done.
A bad job is one with lots of responsibility and no authority. I
would suggest that to ask the agency to take on such a mammoth
task and not provide it with the appropriate level of resources
would be typical of what the government has done in a number of
areas, but it would not be an appropriate way to proceed.
A concern that I have had in the past and still have is the
accountability of the agency, particularly in terms of the
criteria required to meet the conditions that the agency share
information with other agencies, for example, the Canada Customs
and Revenue Agency.
It would be appropriate that any information attained by the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency indicating money laundering
activity would be shared with the money laundering agency.
1620
That type of sharing of information back and forth could be
constructive. However I would be very concerned if, for
instance, the individuals involved in the new money laundering
agency were to identify no evidence of money laundering but some
evidence of potential money laundering which could indicate some
tax evasion or something similar. I would be concerned if the
agency were to share that information with Revenue Canada.
While I agree that we need a much stronger approach to money
laundering, Canadians would not feel comfortable with a resulting
beefed up Revenue Canada agency. We have to be careful there are
clear criteria and conditions that have to be met before it is
deemed appropriate for the money laundering agency to share
information with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
I have another concern that the arm's length nature of these
agencies tends in an institutional way to reduce the amount of
accountability to parliament. I understand some of the
arguments, particularly from the government, in favour of
achieving greater levels of flexibility for compensatory
arrangements with the workers and offering a more flexible
approach to provide these public services to arm's length
agencies.
However much of this could be achieved within the context of
more direct departmental agencies as opposed to these arm's
length agencies. I have a significant concern about what seems
to be a secular decline in the level of accountability to
parliament that the government seems to be very comfortable with.
Again, these arm's length agencies are all part of that greater
reduction in accountability to parliament.
The Progressive Conservative Party supports the legislation and
the amendment which would improve accountability of the new
agency. The agency in the legislation is a step in the right
direction. Canada needs to do less following of what is
happening in other countries and what our trading partners in the
G-8 and OECD are doing. We should try to be more proactive in
leading on some of these issues whether it be on money laundering
or in corporate governance issues.
It always seems that we are just a step slower than a lot of our
international partners. I would hope the government of a country
like Canada, which in the past under the previous government was
an international leader in many ways, would try to copy some of
the initiatives of that previous government. It has on other
issues. The government should provide some level of
international leadership on some of these issues as opposed to
being followers. That is my wish in closing my remarks today.
The Deputy Speaker: Before I call for the resumption of
debate I address myself to the member for Kings—Hants who
probably thinks that all this activity took place to assist him
in marking his very special day, his birthday.
I would never make mention of a member's age, but I understand
the member was what we might commonly refer to as a centennial
year baby.
1625
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Accordingly the bill stands referred
to the Standing Committee on Finance.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing
Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Burnaby—Douglas, Trade.
* * *
CANADA SHIPPING ACT, 2001
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-14, an act
respecting shipping and navigation and to amend the Shipping
Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 and other acts, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Ronald Duhamel (for the Minister of Transport) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third
time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Ronald Duhamel (for Minister of Transport) moved that
the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their patience.
I am anxious to do this because I do not get this opportunity
nearly as often as I used to in the past. It is indeed a great
pleasure to be able to speak to members about Bill C-14, the
Canada Shipping Act, at third reading debate.
Before I discuss the bill I acknowledge the important role that
members of the House and the standing committee played during the
examination of the proposed legislation. Changes to Bill C-14
would not have been possible without the dedicated efforts of
industry. I also acknowledge the quality of their submissions to
the committee.
[Translation]
This bill deals mainly with the safety and promotion of a safe
environment. These are major priorities for Canadians. The
challenge is to maintain safety and protect the environment
against a number of threats while still promoting the health and
viability of the shipping industry.
[English]
Officials from the Department of Transport and the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans worked closely with all interested parties
to ensure that the legislation's pollution prevention provisions
are modern and consistent with other domestic and international
standards.
The departments have also worked together to ensure that the
penalties for non-compliance would be effective and reflect those
imposed in other legislation.
1630
Let me point out to the House that when ship source pollution is
detected in the marine environment, Transport Canada investigates
in close co-operation with Environment Canada and the Canadian
Coast Guard. It is clear that industry supports the departments
as they move toward a brand new Canada Shipping Act. This
legislation shows that this government is committed to deliver a
new statute that will benefit the marine sector.
We have also heard an outline on the provisions of this bill,
the compelling reasons for it and its many strengths. Transport
Canada is very proud of the consultative process that has made
the legislation possible.
While industry for the most part spoke in favour of the proposed
bill, several remained in opposition to the enforcement scheme.
It is to this scheme that I would now like to focus members'
attention.
Bill C-14 would establish a streamlined administrative
enforcement scheme. It would use modern, cost-effective means to
secure compliance with regulatory requirements. The Department
of Transport is committed to work with its partner agencies to
ensure a consistent application of the enforcement measures
contained in this bill.
The administrative penalty scheme would ensure that Transport
Canada has a firm statistical base by which to assess the
effectiveness of its regulations and help focus its enforcement
activities.
Judicial fines have also been set at amounts high enough to
deter unsafe and environmentally irresponsible practices. These
amounts reflect the potential harm that can result from these
practices. They would ensure that penalties would not be
regarded as simply the cost of doing business.
[Translation]
This bill is a conscious effort to hold those responsible for
non-compliance liable for the consequences of their actions,
including corporation heads.
Nobody should be able to avoid personal liability by hiding
behind a corporation.
[English]
The proposed system contained in this bill is fair. It would
provide for a more efficient and less costly alternative to the
courts. It would provide for an alternative to financial
sanctions through the use of assurances of compliance.
This system would be based on the successful program of
administrative penalties developed in the Aeronautics Act, the
Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act,
and the Competition Act.
This House will recall that during second reading some concerns
were raised about the government's ability to protect Canada from
foreign vessels that failed to comply with international
standards. I want to point out that in section 227 vessels that
contravene international conventions relating to safety and the
environment can be denied access to Canadian waters.
I will now speak about Part 15 of the bill, which deals with
amendments to the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act. Part 15 of
Bill C-14 contains several pro-competitive amendments. These
amendments would encourage greater competition within shipping
conferences.
The amendments strike a balance between the interests of
shippers and conference shipping lines and are the result of an
extensive consultation period with all stakeholders.
[Translation]
The amendments are aimed at streamlining the implementation of
the act.
[English]
In response to shippers' concerns, a motion to amend the
proposed legislation on service contracts was introduced.
Modifications were made to clarify the level of confidentiality
in regard to the service contracts shippers negotiate and sign
with individual conference lines.
1635
[Translation]
The government realizes that in order to protect various
Canadian interests a balanced approach is needed with regard to
the legislation on conferences.
[English]
It is in Canada's interest to continue to attract foreign
shipping lines while at the same time encourage affordable ocean
transportation and an adequate and reliable level of service for
shippers.
By adopting the amendments to SCEA, Canadian legislation
pertaining to shipping conferences would be maintained on par
with our trading partners.
The bill before us would bring about much needed change in
Canada's marine law. It would usher in a new era in marine
safety and environmental protection.
Transport Canada has consulted widely. It listened to
stakeholders and made changes to accommodate their concerns. We
have a bill before us that responds to many of their concerns
without jeopardizing the effectiveness of the legislation.
The bill is fair, thorough and effective. It would give
Canada's marine industry the legislative framework it needs to
operate successfully in the 21st century.
I urge the hon. members to support Bill C-14.
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-14 on behalf of my
party. Bill C-14 is an act respecting shipping and navigation
and to amend the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 and
other Acts.
For the benefit of those Canadians watching television, I will
summarize the purpose of the bill.
This quote is taken directly from the bill. It states:
This enactment overhauls and replaces the Canada Shipping Act,
other than the portions that concern liability, with modernized
legislation that will promote the safety and economic performance
of the commercial marine industry as well as ensure the safety of
those who use pleasure craft. Key changes to the existing
legislation include improvements to provisions to protect and
support efficient crews, ensure passenger and vessel safety and
protect the environment. A new administrative penalties scheme
provides an alternative means for dealing with certain
contraventions.
The enactment clarifies the marine responsibilities between the
Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans. The enactment organizes the contents, updates the
terminology and streamlines substantive requirements to make the
law much clearer and easier to understand.
The enactment amends the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act,
1987 to inject greater competition within shipping conferences,
to streamline the administration of the Act and to ensure that
Canadian legislation covering international liner shipping
conferences remains in harmony with that of Canada's major
trading partners.
On this side of the House, we feel that these are all good and
supportable directions for the legislation to take. As the quote
outlines, Bill C-14 is a significant piece of legislation. I am
told the departmental officials have worked on this for some time
in an attempt to perfect it.
As the members in the House know the bill was originally
introduced in the House as Bill C-35, which died on the order
paper in the 36th parliament when the election was called. Bill
C-35 did not go so far as to include the Shipping Conferences
Exemption Act amendments. It only dealt with the regulatory
changes affecting the industry.
This bill contains some 334 clauses and is just under 200 pages
long. I reiterate that obviously the department officials have
worked on this for some time. We would have appreciated more
time to go through it in a little more detail and perhaps absorb
it a little better, however we were not allowed that time.
Bill C-14 was introduced at first reading on March 1. It went
to second reading the following week and was sent to committee
shortly thereafter. As I said earlier, it was a very speedy process and
I would have to wonder why.
The committee stage for this bill was a journey in itself. We
heard the departmental officials give testimony and briefings
regarding the bill and heard from witnesses in the industry as
well. Some members may also have been visited by lobbyists from
the shipping conferences exemption side of the bill urging
support for the bill without amendment.
All of this happened in short order and the bill moved along the
process quite smoothly until it came to the clause by clause
examination.
The opposition, and even some Liberal members of the committee,
were not too impressed at the lack of organization by the
department when presenting amendments.
1640
We entertained 27 separate amendments at committee. This may
not seem excessive but when they are dumped on your lap at the
beginning of a meeting it certainly is a handful. We certainly
did not appreciate such short notice nor did we appreciate not
having the opportunity to review these amendments beforehand.
As many members know, clause by clause can be a rather tedious
venture at the best of times, but with many last minute
amendments of a detailed nature to a bill which deals mainly with
regulations, it makes the process all the more taxing.
Up until that time, we thought highly of the officials for
undertaking such a monumental task as to redraft such a large and
detailed act. However being so disorganized as to drop those
changes in the committee's lap at the last minute
suggested either that the bill was possibly not ready for the floor of
the House when it was first introduced or the drafters of the
bill did not take the time to check their work.
Either way, as the government official put it, 27 minor
amendments were put to committee and frustrated the entire
process. The amendments were so poorly written that the
parliamentary secretary had to verbally amend an amendment on the
fly.
This is not acceptable. For members of parliament to truly have
input in the process of making laws in the country, we need to
ensure that the process is properly seen to.
We are now at third reading where amendments can be made to the
bill at hand. We see today that there are no further amendments
of the bill. At least right now it appears that way. However I
would not be surprised, if the process allowed for it, if we were
presented with last minute amendments.
I know the Speaker made a recent ruling preventing frivolous
amendments, but I say to the hon. members in this Chamber today,
does that mean that committee now becomes a mockery? I hope not.
This may be a phenomenon that only occurs with the transport
department. I do not know. However I do know that I did not care
for it and I do not think other members of the committee cared
for it either.
With regard to the bill, at present the official opposition
supports the bill in its current form. As I said earlier, we did
have some concerns about the speed of the process, but overall
the general direction of the bill is positive and it needed to be
done.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the leeway to express
my frustrations with the process. I would urge the members
opposite, and should departmental officials be watching today,
that to have good law making in Canada we have to get down to the
business of drafting both in committee and in the House and at
report stage, to ensure that such abuses of the process which
occurred in this committee no longer happen.
In closing, overall we support the general direction and the
long overdue overhaul of the legislation. We have some real
concerns over the need to fast track this lengthy bill and would
have preferred more time to analyze it in detail.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois will be supporting Bill C-14, because
the development of the Canadian shipping industry should have
been reviewed decades ago. This legislation has been long
awaited by the public, shippers and receivers of goods and also
part of the industry.
Again, we will never say it often enough, this bill should have
been passed in the last parliament. It did not happen because
the government called an election for no better reason than to
please some politicians.
Because of that early election, bills like Bill C-14 are once
again before the House.
Was the wait worth it? That is the big question that we and the
people of Quebec and the rest of Canada who are listening should
be asking ourselves. As I was saying, Bill C-14 was introduced in
that last parliament but was not passed because the government
called an early election. Did the government use the delay to go
over the bill and ensure that the industry would be totally
happy with the proposed changes to the Canada Shipping Act? I am
afraid not.
1645
In a press release dated March 1, 2000, the Minister of
Transport stated that this legislation, as introduced, was aimed
at promoting the economic growth of the shipping industry. That
is what the Minister of Transport said on March 1 regarding the
introduction of Bill C-14. All those who are concerned about the
future of shipping in Quebec and in Canada expected the
government to seize the opportunity, being just a few months
into its mandate, to introduce a stronger bill that would have
really helped the shipping industry, as mentioned by the
minister in his statement.
I repeat that he said in that statement that the bill's intent
was to promote the economic growth of the shipping industry. It
so happens that the Bloc Quebecois had mentioned on several
occasions that the only way to promote the economic growth of
the shipping industry was to establish a real federal
shipbuilding policy.
We had no choice but to recognize that the bill that was
introduced at the beginning of this parliament is a carbon copy
of the previous one, except for some 27 amendments dealing
mostly with periods, commas and legal technicalities. We sadly
realized that the government had not taken this opportunity to
establish, through this shipping bill, a true federal
shipbuilding policy.
Even though the minister received a report in early April from
the committee, the national partnership project committee on
shipbuilding, he has still not announced what he plans to do
about it.
Advantage could have been taken of it to introduce a real
change, not just piecemeal amendments. This was a new bill,
even if it was drafted already for passage during the last
parliament. Since a committee was struck, as I have said,
the national partnership committee on shipbuilding, which has
submitted its report to the minister, we could have taken
advantage of it as a good responsible government to introduce
a whole new chapter on shipbuilding in Canada, but as hon.
members will have realized, this was not done.
The Bloc Quebecois, and myself in particular, want to see the
entire matter of shipbuilding revisited.
As we speak, the shipyards are only at about 25% capacity. In
Quebec there is an obvious decline, when total job numbers are
looked at, in Lévis, Île aux Coudres and Les Méchins, and the
situation is the same everywhere, in Vancouver and in Halifax. In the
past it has given work to some 12,000 people, but as we speak
the figure is scarcely 2,750.
This is hard to understand. We MPs wage battles for our
constituents. The Bloc Quebecois has fought for them on shipbuilding,
on the number of jobs in this sector. We began the
battle. The government struck an independent special committee,
which was to produce a report.
When the bill that preceded Bill C-14 was introduced in the
previous parliament, the government could argue that it could
not add a chapter on shipbuilding because it was waiting for
the committee to table its report. The committee has now
submitted its report, but the minister has yet to decide what he
will do with it.
In order to promote the industry's economic growth, it might
have been very interesting, as the minister said, to add a whole
new chapter on the recovery of Canada's shipbuilding industry.
Why? Because the Canadian workforce is qualified and it costs
less than that of most of our competitors. We have an edge on
all the other countries.
The majority of Canadian shipyards use very modern equipment and
advanced technology. Two of them hold ISO 9001 quality
certification, while four have ISO 9002. Shipyard managers and
other stakeholders in the marine industry feel that they were
abandoned by the federal government at least ten years ago. They
feel left out compared to other industries such as, to name but
one, the aerospace industry. The shipbuilding industry deserved
to be listened to in a serious and independent fashion.
1650
With direct access to three oceans and to the world's longest
inland waterway, shipbuilders and shipowners wonder why Canada
chose to let their industry down.
These are issues that were raised by the Bloc Quebecois and
that the government decided to deal with by setting up a special
committee. However, it did not see fit to include a whole
chapter in the new Bill C-14 to deal with the industry.
Shipping is the most economical means of transportation and the
one that is most respectful of the environment.
A number of shipyards are surviving at the present time because
of provincial government intervention, although this is an area
of federal jurisdiction.
We talk about all kinds of jurisdictions. Today or
yesterday the Prime Minister announced the creation of a task
force on urban issues that will be travelling across Canada. That
is an area of provincial jurisdiction, one that is the sole and
exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec. The government should leave it
to the provinces, but it is apparently very hard to understand.
Quebec has tax measures, including a tax credit. Nova Scotia has
a specific program of financial guarantees. British Columbia has
encouraged the acceleration of its aluminum ferry program.
Canada's shipbuilding industry is at a disadvantage compared to
its Asian competitors, who receive government subsidies of up to
30% of the amount of their contracts, the Europeans, who receive
about 9%, and the Americans, who benefit from protectionist
measures. Yet Canada has neither subsidies nor protectionist
measures. We have missed the boat.
I would like to commend my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois,
the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, who
introduced, on October 14, 1999, a private member's bill, Bill
C-213, on shipbuilding. His bill was intended to promote
shipbuilding in Canada and to enhance the competitive capacity of
Canadian shipyards.
Obviously our fine Liberal government decided to not make this
bill a votable item. Still, I congratulate my colleague on his
effort, because he had three very ingenious and significant ideas
arising from the discussions he had with the industry. That is
why there were three parts to his bill.
The first part concerned the establishment of a program of loans
and guarantees to indicate to the shipbuilding industry in Canada
that there was a program providing that 87.5% of the amount of a
loan for the purchase of a ship could be guaranteed by the
federal government.
There was therefore, initially, a loan guarantee, and then a
rate of interest comparable to that available for loans from
financial institutions to large and financially strong
corporations.
It would have been possible to provide a loan guarantee with
competitive interest rates and a repayment schedule comparable to
that offered by financial institutions to large corporations.
The method of repayment would suit obligations and be appropriate
for a business that could become very prosperous.
The second part concerned the exclusion of new vessels from the
application of the lend lease regulations. Because of their
complexity, lend leases effectively eliminated the purchase of
ships in Canada by lend lease. The new lend leases include
repayment conditions, which harm the industry. New ships were
excluded from the lend lease regulations.
The third innovation was to establish a refundable tax credit.
In 1997 the government of Quebec announced tax incentives to
stimulate the shipping industry. These incentives were based on a
tax credit. The Quebec government raised the refundable tax
credit for shipbuilding from 40% to 50%. The federal government
could have offered the same kind of tax credits to businesses in
the shipbuilding industry to breathe new life into this industry.
It did not happen. Once again, the Liberal government missed a
golden opportunity in a very interesting bill that was supposed
to be a life saving measure for the shipping industry, according
to the minister himself. I repeat that he said in a statement on
March 1 that the bill's intent was to promote the economic growth
of the shipping industry.
Why did he not heed the recommendations presented to him in
April by the committee that he himself established? Why did he
not take advantage of this new expertise and these new
recommendations to include in the very interesting shipping bill
a whole chapter on shipbuilding in Canada?
It would have solved the problem and would have given momentum
to an industry which, I repeat, is only operating at 25% of its
capacity today.
1655
The present number of workers is 2,750. It used to be
12,000. These men and women, these Quebecers and Canadians,
expect that when the time comes to bring in a bill the
government will table one that they want. I repeat, we had one
that was votable at the end of the last parliament, which was
interrupted when the government decided to call an election to
satisfy the wishes of certain politicians.
However, the government again brings in an identical bill, when
it would have had a great opportunity after being presented with
a most interesting committee report to bring in a real bill that
would have got the shipping industry back on its feet, with a
whole chapter devoted to shipbuilding and to getting this
important industry back on its feet, since it is operating at
only 25% capacity. We have the brains and the skills necessary,
and we are capable of competing with all other industries in the
world.
Once again the Liberal government, the Government of Canada, has
not listened to the recommendations by taxpayers, by
representatives of the industry, and by the Bloc Quebecois. The
Bloc Quebecois has staunchly defended, not for partisan reasons
but for human ones, the skilled men and women who are getting on
in years but would still like to use their experience for this
fine country. They cannot, because there is no work at this time.
The government has again missed a golden opportunity to include
in this Bill C-14 a whole chapter on shipbuilding, which could
have revived the industry in a number of our regions that are
experiencing major blips. We could have had an opportunity to
revive this entire industrial sector, which involves a number of
regions on the coasts of both Quebec and Canada. This would have
been an excellent opportunity, one once again missed out on by a
government that is too arrogant, that governs alone without
heeding good recommendations from those who are anxious to pass
them on.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
want to say a few words on Bill C-14, the Canada Shipping Act and
amendments to the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act.
When the bill was tabled, the minister's press release stated
that it would update, modernize and streamline Canada's marine
law and that it would delineate new roles for the Department of
Transport and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The minister also indicated that the bill would allow the entire
marine community to operate in a manner that is safer, more
efficient, environmentally sound and responsive to the needs of
Canadians in a global community and a global economy. These are
laudable aims that we in this party can support.
The proposed amendments to the Shipping Conferences Exemption
Act are purported to generally streamline the administration of
the act and to promote greater competition in the marine shipping
industry.
Shipping conferences of course are groupings of shipping lines
that are essentially cartels. The word cartel brings to mind
OPEC, an organization dedicated to fixing the volume and price of
oil on world markets. Similarly, shipping conferences collude on
prices and services and claim to prevent wild fluctuations in
same as regards the marine shipment of goods. The conferences
claim that the benefit to our importers and exporters is
stability in the shipping industry.
In general, most stakeholder witnesses at the transport
committee felt that Bill C-14 was generally an improvement over
the current situation. However, just about every group of
witnesses had one or two complaints about one clause or another.
As an opposition critic and a layman in the field, one is faced
with saying yea or nay to a complicated piece of legislation
where the average witness says that he or she is in favour of 95%
of the bill but that he or she is strongly opposed to clause x or
y.
One major change that the bill brings in is to put all
commercial vessels under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Transport and all pleasure craft under the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans.
1700
The Department of Transport will now have to create an automated
small vessel registry as small commercial vessels under 12 metres
in length used to be handled by DFO. One hopes that this will
not result in a bureaucratic nightmare for small commercial
vessels.
One concern that has come up is that the boats are not always
pleasure craft or commercial vessels, depending on usage. In
many rural areas of Canada, the family pleasure craft is
sometimes rented out to say a sports fishing or outfitting
company if there is a large increase in clients. The vessel that
met the pleasure craft standards yesterday may not meet the
Department of Transport rules for commercial vessels tomorrow.
This will preclude rural people from making a few extra dollars
if the transport department rules are strongly enforced. There
are implications down the road for ordinary people that may not
be evident at first glance.
One witness asked the committee “What if a pleasure craft gets
into an accident with a small water taxi?” Whose jurisdiction is
it to straighten out that mess, the Department of Transport or
DFO?
There are millions of pleasure craft in Canada and this bill
would allow the minister to make regulations on standards of
construction and equipment carried on boats. A number of
witnesses expressed concern that the government may require
pleasure craft to be upgraded in order to be licensed. This
could lead to financial hardship for many small boat owners,
especially pleasure craft owners, whose boats were bought many
years ago when standards were different or not as high as they
are today. Are we going to run into a situation that sees people
being refused a licence unless considerable money is spent on a
small boat?
I am given to understand that federal legislation requires that
a boat with an engine larger than 9.9 horsepower be licensed, and
that includes many boats in Canada. At present we have a paper
only licensing system where a form is filled out that goes into a
file cabinet and nowhere else. If a boat is licensed, carries a
number and gets lost or stolen, how do police trace it? At
present they cannot look it up on their computers because the
only copy of the licence is in a file cabinet in some government
office halfway across the country. As a result, thousands of
small boats in the country are not licensed at all, and because
the boat may be at a lake near a cottage, no one in authority
really knows it exists.
The solution of course is a computerized licensing system, but I
wonder if the general public out there is ready or willing to get
into a new bureaucratic system on boats that has been taken for
granted for years. I realize that boat traffic in some of the
lakes and waterways in the mainland of Canada can be very dense
during the summer months and tighter controls are necessary. In
rural Canada, however, such a new intrusion into peoples' lives
may not be welcome. My problem of course is that the bill raises
more questions than it probably answers.
Bill C-14 claims to be progressive in that enforcement
mechanisms would allow for administrative penalties in
addition to the usual court proceedings. In theory, this would
allow the minister to take action against lesser infractions
without dragging someone into court and maybe giving him or her a
criminal record. That could be very good.
However, in court one must be found guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt and one has the protection of the charter of rights. In an
administrative penalty, the onus on the minister to prove guilt
is far less onerous. Just about all the witnesses commented that
they disagreed with the administrative penalties because one
would not have full access to due process as one would have in a
court of law. I do not know if that is good or bad. I guess we
will have to wait and see.
At the beginning of my remarks, I mentioned that the amendments
to the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act were purported to
encourage more competition in the shipping industry. The
exemption in the act's title refers to exemption from Canada's
competition laws which would normally outlaw cartel activities.
In particular, the Minister of Transport claimed that the bill
would bring our legislation more in line with our American
trading partners. The shipping conferences generally agreed but
people with goods to ship, the Canadian Shipping Council for
instance, did not. We will wait to see where that leads as well.
1705
Shippers want to be able to enter into confidential contracts
with individual shipping lines so as to get the lowest price for
shipping their goods. This bill would allow them to do so, but
there is no clause requiring the owner of the ship to keep the
details of such a contract secret from other shipowners in the
conference.
In the United States a shipper can enter into such a
confidential contract but in the U.S. the owners of the ship and
the members of the conference are expressly forbidden to share
the details of the contract with fellow conference members. The
change in our rules would be a step toward the
American rules but falls a bit short of them.
The shippers wanted a dispute settling mechanism in the
legislation but were also disappointed. As well, they wanted a
sunset clause ultimately phasing out the cartels over a number of
years, and they lost that battle as well.
All told, the shipping conference legislation changes little
that would help our exporters and importers. The bill merely
makes some administrative improvements to the status quo.
I am given to understand that changes to Canada's shipping laws
have been in the works for many years and there have been
extensive consultations with many stakeholders. I am reluctant
to vote against the bill if there has been that kind of wide
consultation. However, I have grave reservations about the
implications for small pleasure and commercial vessels. I fear
that in due course the public may be in for more bureaucratic
entanglements than they currently expect or want.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
CANADA NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House resumed from May 2 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation
areas of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to speak with great concern about the government's
Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation
areas of Canada. Before I comment on the areas of the bill that
I find quite concerning, I would like to make the following
statement.
I believe that Canada's natural heritage should be protected and
that it is our responsibility to ensure a viable environment is
passed on to our children and our children's children in
perpetuity. However, I also believe that the very survival of
many remote and coastal communities, particularly those in my
riding in northern British Columbia, depend on natural resources.
British Columbia has been blessed with beauty and an abundance
of natural resources, many would say more than enough to go
around. Yes, we must protect our natural environment, but we
must do so with the understanding that not all industry is
harmful to the environment and that the economic sustainability
of many coastal and remote communities hinges on their ability to
extract or harvest those natural resources, be it fisheries,
forestry, mining or drilling for fossil fuels. This is a reality
we cannot overlook.
As members of the House undoubtedly know, the bill has had a
rather difficult time making its way through parliament in the
past.
1710
An earlier form of the bill was introduced in the House of
Commons during the 36th parliament as the then Bill C-48. It was
referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage which
heard evidence in February and March of 1999. Bill C-48 then
died on the order paper when parliament was prorogued.
It reappeared in the second session of the 36th parliament as
Bill C-8. It made its way as far as report stage. Although it
was amended slightly in committee, it too died on the order paper
when parliament dissolved to the call of the October 2000
election.
Bill C-10 before us today is a reincarnation of both Bill C-48
and Bill C-8, taking into account the 1999 amendments.
I would venture to suggest that a lack of broad public
consultation is the reason for previous versions of the bill
being dumped from the government's legislative agenda in the
past. I would say that it still needs much amending.
I do urge the government whip to allow her members to take a
long hard look at the effects of the bill and allow their
conscience to guide them in making much needed changes in
committee and report stage.
At this time I would like to shift my attention away from the
scope of the bill and narrow in on what I believe are some key
areas of the bill.
To begin, let us take a close look at the preamble, specifically
lines 4 to 10 in the government's definition of precautionary
principle. The bill begins by stating:
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to adopting the
precautionary principle in the conservation and management of the
marine environment so that, where there are threats of
environmental damage, lack of scientific certainty is not used as
a reason for postponing preventive measures;
The hon. members in the House today and the viewers at home may
not realize that Bill C-10 considerably expands the concept of
the precautionary principle. There is broad support for the
wording of principle 15 of the 1991 Rio declaration on
environment and development, which states:
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach
shall be widely applied by States according to their
capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible
damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a
reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation.
Members of the House should be concerned that since the
precautionary principle guides the government in its decision
making process, this substantially expanded version allows the
government to essentially create marine conservation areas
wherever it pleases; the definition is that broad.
By removing the words serious or irreversible when dealing with
threat assessment, the government has carte blanche to decide
what warrants a designation of a marine conservation area and
what does not. This is not in accordance with the Rio
declaration that Canada signed on to and, as such, is not an
appropriate definition of the precautionary principle.
I would urge members of the House to demand the amendment of the
definition. The precautionary principle is the guiding force
determining what regions become marine conservation areas. It is
not acceptable that this definition be expanded arbitrarily.
I am concerned with a few other clauses of the bill, which I
believe either need to be amended or entirely deleted.
The government has said that the purpose of the bill is to
establish the rules that will allow for the creation of national
marine conservation areas to protect and conserve marine
ecosystems that are representative of the 29 marine environments
in Canada's coastal zones and the Great Lakes.
Unlike national parks, whose resources are fully protected,
marine conservation areas are managed for sustainable use, except
where forbidden by clause 13, which deals with the exploration
and extraction of any and all mineral or other deposits within a
marine conservation area.
The bill would allow for sustainable use within the marine
conservation area, with a focus on recreation, tourism, education
and research.
Currently, federal-provincial agreements are either in place or
under consideration for four parks, representing five of the
twenty-nine marine regions. The proposed Gwaii Haanas park on
Queen Charlotte Shelf in the Hecate Strait marine regions is in
my riding of Skeena. This park could represent an area roughly
equivalent to one-sixth of my total riding.
I must say that there are those who believe the intent of the
legislation is to forbid any form of development within marine
conservation areas and, further, to go beyond protecting the
original 29 marine regions the legislation was designed for and
to create many more new marine conservation areas. This is of
grave concern to me and to many other Canadians.
1715
As is mentioned in the bill, these 29 marine conservation areas
would be zoned for different uses. Some may be zoned strictly
for tourism, others for science, and there are many who believe
most of these marine conservation areas would severely restrict
any human activity, but more specifically industrial activity.
Whatever the original intent of the bill may be, I would urge
members to take specific notice of clause 13, which specifically
forbids any mineral or inorganic resource extraction within all
marine conservation areas. Allow me to quote from the bill in
clause 13 on page 9:
No person shall explore for or exploit hydrocarbons, minerals,
aggregates or any other inorganic matter within a marine
conservation area.
I ask the House to reflect on why the bill needs such a severely
restricting, overarching clause affecting all marine conservation
areas when it is supposed to be the intent of the bill to zone
each area for specific usage, unless of course it is the
government's intention to shut down those industries in Canada
that rely on the extraction of such materials.
Furthermore, I find it quite strange that members of parliament
representing areas of Atlantic Canada would not strongly object
to such a clause since some of them hail from a province like
Newfoundland, where the famous Hibernia offshore drilling program
has successfully and, may I say, in an environmental manner
penetrated the ocean's floor, and its very existence is ensuring
the lives and well-being of many Newfoundlanders and Atlantic
Canadians. Should such a bill and clause have been introduced
prior to the Hibernia project and even prior to any exploration
for that project, it possibly would never have been.
I would like to press on in this vein a little further and say
that the legislation could prevent any further exploration and
development off the shores of Newfoundland. For that matter, it
could prevent such development off the shores of Canada, period,
be it in our Atlantic, Arctic or Pacific oceans. Of course many
will say that is true only if those specific areas are designated
as marine conservation areas. That brings me to my next concern
with the legislation.
I ask hon. members of the House to take note of clause 5 on page
4. Subclause 5(1) is most distressing and represents what is
fundamentally wrong with the government. It seriously undermines
the effectiveness of elected representatives in the House. I
believe that once the members in the Chamber today hear what I
will read from the bill they cannot help but understand that
there need to be serious changes to the bill for it to be
accepted in the Commons. I will quote from subclause 5(1):
Subject to section 7, for the purpose of establishing or
enlarging a marine conservation area, consisting of submerged
lands and waters within the internal waters, territorial sea or
exclusive economic zone of Canada and any coastal lands or
islands within Canada, the Governor in Council may, by order,
amend Schedule 1 by adding the name and a description of the area
or by altering the description of the area.
In plain English what this means is that the Prime Minister and
his cabinet can decide out of the blue to create a marine
conservation area in any member's riding or backyard. Yes, the
bill does recommend that the Minister of Canadian Heritage
consult with those she or he deems to be affected people, but it
does not guarantee that their opinions will be heard and agreed
to. It is conceivable, should parts of the St. Lawrence be
considered a marine conservation area, that the government could
restrict or reduce fishery catch levels for various species, or
even shipping levels. The heritage minister might even choose
some of the most fertile fishing grounds on the east coast or,
for that matter, the west coast, and deem them marine
conservation areas. There would be nothing we as elected members
of parliament could do about it.
How does the minister think this will sit with Canadians and
more so with coastal communities whose very survival in many
cases depends on the resources they can extract from the sea? The
power the bill in this clause takes away from Canadians and their
parliament and places in the hands of a very few insiders,
cabinet members, is appalling. I know my constituents will not
stand for it and neither will I.
I implore members of the House to demand the amendment of the
clause and to return the power of creation and enlargement of
these marine conservation areas to the hands of parliament, where
it will receive much reflection, consultation and thought. We
are accountable to our constituents and to Canadians.
I know my comments in the House today may seem strong and
passionate, but when I read on to the end of clause 5 to
subclause 5(3) my blood really boils. There is no doubt that
Canadians listening today should be outraged at the fact that
cabinet is the sole body creating and enlarging marine
conservation areas.
However, it should incense them even more to learn that the body
that creates these areas does not have the power to reduce or
eliminate them.
1720
Let me explain. It is all right for the government to expedite
the creation of these marine conservation areas and to wield the
swift power of cabinet to that end, but to reduce or eliminate an
area would take an act of parliament. Allow me to read once
again from the bill. I would ask members to take note of
subclause 5(3) on page 5:
No amendment may be made by the Governor in Council to Schedule 1
for the purpose of removing any portion of a marine conservation
area.
Of course I agree that parliament should be the body deciding on
whether or not a marine conservation area should be designated.
However, what Canadians may not realize is that only the
government can raise in the House an amendment to an act of
parliament, meaning that it would have to be the will of the
government of the day to amend or remove a marine conservation
area. It would not be up to individual members to do so.
Although we as elected members would have the opportunity to
debate such a bill, we could not make any changes on our own.
It is also important to note that it is not uncommon for a bill
to take up to one year to make its way through the House of
Commons and its standing committee, to the Senate and then to
receive royal assent. Depending on the priority the government
places on the bill, it could take even longer.
We know that in reality the time a bill spends in the House of
Commons or the Senate is controlled by the government. It has
been known to push bills through in weeks and it has also dragged
its heels on some bills for years, not unlike what has happened
to the history of this bill, I might add.
The point I am trying to make is that the government does not
need to abrogate its democratic responsibility by allowing clause
5 to stand. It already has the power to push bills into law and
could create as many marine conservation areas as it likes.
I would urge the government to do the right thing and allow
parliament its due evaluation, consultation and amendment of
bills relating to specific marine conservation areas, not ram
this omnibus piece of legislation through the House.
I would ask members to support amendments to the legislation
that would see the need for the government to introduce specific
legislation for every marine conservation area it plans to
designate.
I would ask members to support amendments to remove clause 13.
As mentioned, that clause would eliminate the ability to ever
extract resources from the marine conservation areas regardless
of the environmental viability of any project.
I will leave you and my hon. colleagues with
these final words of caution and conscience. Members should ask
themselves how their constituents would react if their fishing
grounds were to become protected under the bill. How would their
constituents feel if their activities, those which, I might add,
put food on their tables and clothes on their children's backs,
could not be continued? What if they were told they could not
work or that the bill would drastically affect the future of
their community? I would venture to suggest members of
parliament would want to consult widely, bring their concerns to
the attention of the minister and have their day in the House to
express those opinions and to convince their colleagues to
support their endeavours.
As this bill currently stands, hon. members will never have that
opportunity. That is wrong. Therefore I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor: Bill
C-10, An Act respecting the national marine conservation areas of
Canada, be not now read a second time but that the Order be
discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof
referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The amendment is in
order.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the speech by my colleague, the
Canadian Alliance member. I might have ten or so questions to
ask him as a result of his speech, but I will sum them up.
He mentioned the precautionary principle. I believe it is quite
normal for him to do so.
1725
I would like to know what he means, as the Canadian Alliance
critic in this matter, by precautionary principle with regard to
the marine conservation areas?
At present, marine conservation areas cover endangered species
and territories located in the provinces. Throughout his speech,
I did not hear him refer to consultation with the provinces. The
member made no mention of the involvement of provincial
governments in the decision to create such areas.
In my area of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, we have the Saguenay—St.
Lawrence Marine Park, which was created after consultation with
the community, the province and the federal government. Based on
that, the government did something really fine. I believe it is
a model of what Canada and Quebec can do together. The member
did not mention that.
He also said in his speech that no matter what the environmental
sustainability of a project is, we must forge ahead. I have very
serious reservations about this. He referred to the Rio
convention and the precautionary principle.
These are the first questions I would like to ask the member. If
I still have the time, I would like to ask him some more.
[English]
Mr. Andy Burton: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for those questions. I unfortunately cannot reply in the
member's native language, but I will do the best I can in
English.
I will deal first with the provincial consultation aspects.
Obviously if legislation such as this proceeds there is a role
for the provinces. I would suggest that it is a major role. It
is absolutely critical that the provinces be involved in the
creation of any marine conservation areas.
I am from British Columbia, the west coast of Canada. I think
the implications for the province of British Columbia are of
great concern because of the potential for offshore oil and gas
development, among other things. The implications are not just
for the offshore but for lakes, streams and so on. Certainly
there has to be a great deal of provincial consultation. There
is no question about that.
As I said right at the beginning, I have a great deal of concern
about the environment. We all respect the environment. I come
from a rural area. I have lived in small town Canada all my
life. I hunt and fish. I consider myself to be a basic
environmentalist. I enjoy the outdoors. I respect the outdoors
and the environment, as do all my colleagues in the Canadian
Alliance. It is extremely important that we continue to protect
the environment.
What we are saying is that we cannot allow this legislation to
stand in the way of environmentally acceptable development. That
is my concern. As I said earlier, especially in B.C. there is
potential for offshore oil and gas development, for instance. We
cannot just shut that down. The potential for the economy of
Canada and British Columbia is huge. Look at what it has done
for Newfoundland. Look at what it has done for the east coast.
We have to take all of those things into consideration. We need
to have a balance.
I am no expert but the precautionary principle has been changed
to some degree by taking out words around the phrase lack of
scientific certainty. The real statement reads:
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack
of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost effective measures—
We are saying that the removal of certain words from that
principle creates a little different and much harsher aspect in
the content of the bill. That is what concerns us. Even if there
was no real evidence something could be stopped on that basis
rather than people saying that we should take a look at it and
see if we can really do it in an environmentally friendly manner.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): We have less than a
minute left for questions and comments. Therefore I would like
to see the clock as 5.30 p.m. and take the five minutes the next
time it is before the House. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1730
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 5.30 p.m., the House
will now proceed to the consideration of private members'
business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
IRAQ
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this
House, the Canadian government should lead efforts at the
United Nations to lift the economic sanctions imposed upon
Iraq since 1991, which have served only to inflict severe
suffering on civilians, especially the most vulnerable
members of the Iraqi population, namely the elderly, the
sick and children.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is with a sense of profound sadness
and anger that I rise in my place in the House today to once
again plead with our government, the Government of Canada, to
finally show leadership and to call on the United Nations and on
every other international forum for an end to the genocidal
sanctions that have been imposed upon the people of Iraq for the
last decade.
I cannot believe I am still standing in place today pleading
with our government to act, over a year after a strong, powerful
and eloquent report of a unanimous foreign affairs committee
called on the Liberal government to do precisely what I am
seeking today, to lift the economic sanctions that have had such
a catastrophic impact on innocent human lives, innocent people in
Iraq. The sanctions certainly have not had an impact on Saddam
Hussein, but over the course of the last decade, they have
resulted in the death, according to UNICEF, of over half a
million children under the age of five.
I travelled to Iraq back in January 2000 with a delegation from
a group called Voices of Conscience, Objection de conscience.
This is a group of very fine women and men, mainly from Quebec,
who are artists, journalists, doctors and representatives of
non-governmental organizations. We travelled overland into
Baghdad and then down into the southern part of Iraq.
For me it was a return visit because I had been to Iraq nine
years previously, just before war broke out. I visited in
November 1990 leading a delegation that included Lloyd Axworthy,
then foreign affairs critic for the Liberal Party, and a
Conservative member of parliament named Bob Corbett.
The results of the imposition of that draconian sanctioned
regime, as well as the massive and ongoing bombings that many
Canadians do not even know are happening in Iraq today, were
absolutely devastating both to the people and to the
infrastructure of Iraq.
We must never forget the appalling attack that took place in
1991. I will not call it a war because, as one of the United
States generals said, it was like shooting fish in a barrel. I
believe there were over 100,000 Iraqi casualties of that attack.
Prior to that attack, Iraq was one of the most advanced
countries in the Middle East in economic, social and cultural
rights. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world
after Saudi Arabia. They belong to the people of Iraq. They
were nationalized in 1972. Iraq had an extensive health care
system, clean and abundant drinking water, sewage treatment
plants, electric power generation plants, free education at all
levels and a comprehensive network of social services. The
status of women in Iraq, a country in the Middle East in which
too often women are still very much second class citizens, was
one of the most advanced of any country in that region.
1735
What our delegation witnessed on our return last year was the
total collapse of Iraq's human and physical infrastructure, a
nation that has experienced a shift from, as was described by the
United Nations development program, relative affluence to massive
poverty. Unemployment is epidemic. Inflation has skyrocketed.
The average salary is about $5 U.S. a month. There has been a
dramatic increase in begging, prostitution and crime.
The agriculture sector is in disarray, ravaged by hoof and mouth
disease, screw-worm and the effects of major drought. The once
thriving and vibrant cultural sector has been another victim of
this inhumane sanctions regime, as our delegation heard from the
artists with whom we met.
While we were in Baghdad we also met with the then United
Nations humanitarian co-ordinator, Hans von Sponeck. Hans von
Sponeck, who was a distinguished public servant with the United
Nations for many years, resigned shortly after we left. He said
that he could no longer participate in the administration of the
inhumane sanctions regime. In resigning in that way, he joined
the former United Nations humanitarian co-ordinator, Dennis
Halliday, and the former head of the United Nations World Food
Program, Jutta Burghardt. He pointed out in many speeches
afterwards that, in his words, Iraq was truly a third world
country once again. He said, and I quote:
In a recent speech, he quoted from a December 2000 UNICEF report
that ranked the increase in Iraq's child mortality rates the
highest among 188 countries in the world since 1991; a 160% surge
as a result of a lack of medicine, malnutrition and waterborne
diseases, such as dysentery.
Hans von Sponeck strongly opposes the sanctions and has called
for the lifting of the sanctions. He said that he wants it
clearly underlined that does not mean he supports Saddam Hussein,
which is certainly also the case for myself and members of the
New Democratic Party.
While Saddam Hussein has an appalling track record of
repression, including the gassing of Kurds in northern Iraq at
Halabja, and should be held accountable before the international
community for his crimes, we also need to understand that the
impact of these genocidal sanctions means that those are who are
directly responsible for imposing them are, in my view, also
guilty of crimes against humanity.
Let us look at the former United States secretary of state,
Madeleine Albright. When she was asked in an interview whether
the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqi children
were worth the price that was being paid to enforce these
sanctions, she looked right into the camera and she said “yes,
that is a price worth paying”. That was a price worth paying,
the death of those children.
As my colleague for Vancouver East said, that is shameful and
that is genocidal. As Hans von Sponeck said “whether you die by
bullets or by hunger and disease, you are still dead”. Iraq in
the last 10 years has suffered beyond any imaginable allowable
limits.
We often hear talk of Iraq as a rogue state. The United States
is seeking to justify its new star wars scheme, the national
missile defence program, partly by suggesting that somehow Iraq,
North Korea, Iran and others are rogue states.
I want to suggest that the true rogue state on the planet today
in fact is the United States itself, which has shown such
contempt for international law and for the standards of basic
humanity in enforcing these profoundly immoral and illegal
sanctions.
1740
The United States, after all, is a country that has demonstrated
contempt for international law in many different ways. It has
shown contempt for the environment by turning its back on the
Kyoto accord. It has shown contempt for the rights of children
by being one of the only countries in the world, along with
Somalia, that has refused to sign the international convention on
the rights of the child. It has shown contempt for international
law by supporting the absolutely violent and appalling policies of
the Israeli government in its attacks on the Palestinians and its
illegal policy of occupation in settlements. Terrible violence is
being directed against Palestinians. It is the United States
that has consistently been propping it up. We can also look at
the United States in the context of its support for the illegal
sanctions against Cuba. Once again, which state is the real
rogue state in the world today? We know which one it is.
The current situation in Iraq is absolutely tragic. The
greatest burden of these sanctions is borne by the most
vulnerable people in Iraqi society: the children, the women, the
disabled and the elderly.
As I have mentioned, UNICEF has confirmed that infant mortality
rates have skyrocketed since the imposition of these sanctions.
Over half a million children have died as a result of the
imposition of these sanctions and 4,500 children continue to die
each month.
I met with doctors in Baghdad and Basra who, with tears in their
eyes, spoke of their sense of helplessness and powerlessness in
being unable to save the lives of more than 2% of the children in
their care in the oncology wards. They knew that many of those
who survived would just return to hellish conditions of
malnutrition and open sewage. There was one nurse for 100
children in a ward that we visited.
There has been an explosive rise in the incidence of endemic
infections, such as cholera, typhoid and malaria, and major
increases in measles, polio and tetanus. Iraq has also seen a
huge brain drain as a result of the sanctions. The middle class
has largely been destroyed and young people see no hope for their
future. We were told of Saturday auctions where proud Iraqi
families are forced to sell off their family heirlooms and
furniture simply to survive.
I visited a pediatric clinic in Basra in the south. The death
toll there was particularly high and it was linked to the use by
the allies of depleted uranium in bombing in the spring of 1991.
As I have mentioned, the bombings continue even today in that
region. It is illegal. The no fly zones have no legal basis
whatsoever, yet the United States and the U.K. continue to bomb
and innocent civilians continue to die as a result of that
bombing. Recently they bombed just outside Baghdad. I was
ashamed as a Canadian that our government was one of the only
governments that was actually prepared to stand up and defend the
United States and the United Kingdom in that illegal bombing.
The bombing goes on and the impact of depleted uranium in terms
of the congenital deformities, particularly in the south, has
been terrible.
We also witnessed the results of what one Baghdad professor
referred to as the intellectual genocide of Iraq. Virtually no
funding is left for education as a result of the oil proceeds and
so the system has collapsed. They have no access to scientific
and medical journals and no opportunities to attend professional
conferences. Parents give their children chalk to take to
schools. Our delegation brought in pencils and medical supplies
as an act of silent defiance.
What about the oil for food program? Well, it has not worked.
In fact the so-called 661 committee, which enforces the program,
has been harshly criticized by many commentators, including the
secretary general of the United Nations who said just last
November that he had serious concerns over the excessive number
of holds that have been placed on applications and on sectors,
such as electricity, water, sanitation and agriculture, that
impact adversely on the poor state of nutrition in Iraq.
I would like to say a word about nutrition. Dr. Sheila Zurbrigg
has documented eloquently the state of famine that has gripped
Iraq today. She pointed out that in recent statistics the trends
in mortality are getting even worse and that the conditions are
getting worse. She also said that child malnutrition rates in
the centre south part of the country do not appear to have
improved and nutrition problems remain serious and widespread.
Acute malnutrition is a huge problem and it is above 10%. Many
children are small for their age and visibly wasting away. One
in seven Iraqi children will die before the age of five. It is
absolutely unbelievable. The agricultural sector, as the FAO has
pointed out, is in crisis as well.
1745
I have mentioned Dr. Sheila Zurbrigg. I will also pay tribute
to the many Canadians, individuals and organizations that have
worked so tirelessly and with such commitment and dedication
against these inhumane and genocidal sanctions. These include
the Canadian Network to End Sanctions on Iraq, the Nova Scotia
Campaign to End Iraq Sanctions, End the Arms Race, Physicians for
Global Survival Canada, Objection de conscience or Voices of
Conscience, Project Ploughshares, Kawartha Ploughshares and many
such groups across the country.
In closing, I once again remind the House of the unanimous
recommendation of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade that the government immediately work for the
lifting of economic sanctions. It is essential that the
sanctions be lifted, that they be lifted now and that Canada show
the leadership that makes it possible.
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, while the government
is sympathetic to the humanitarian objectives of the motion
before the House, we cannot support the proposition that Canada
seek the removal of U.N. sanctions on Iraq in the absence of
Iraqi compliance with U.N. obligations.
Canadian policy toward Iraq has been motivated by the
government's concern both for the humanitarian situation and for
the security challenges Baghdad continues to pose for the region.
This balanced approach must continue to guide our actions on the
Iraq file.
[Translation]
We do not dispute the fact that sanctions have had a profound
impact on the people of Iraq. It is the prescription called for
in the motion with which we disagree. The call to lift sanctions
is an appealing response to the situation, but it neglects not
only the security risks of such a unilateral step but also the
measures that have been and continue to be instituted with
increasing success to minimize the civilian impact of the Iraq
sanctions regime.
The approach that Canada and the international community have
brought to the design and implementation of the Iraq sanctions
regime has been focussed, from the outset, on both the security
and humanitarian dimensions of the problem. While the
international community has been justifiably determined to put an
end to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs, equal
attention has been paid to the need to mitigate the humanitarian
impact of sanctions.
Resolutions 661 and 687, which set up the sanctions regime after
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and extended it following Kuwait's
liberation, exempted food and medicine from the embargo. When,
because of Iraqi obstruction, it became clear that Iraqi
disarmament would take longer than the few weeks or months
originally anticipated, the UN tried to establish an oil for food
program which would enable Iraqi oil revenues to be used for
humanitarian purposes. UN resolution 706 creating the oil for food
program was passed in 1991.
For its own political reasons, the government of Iraq rejected
UN resolution 706, delaying the implementation of an oil for food
program for nearly five years. The result was a catastrophic
degradation of Iraqi society. When the Government of Iraq
relented in 1995-96 and finally accepted the oil for food
program, it was already far too late to avert a collapse in Iraqi
health and living standards.
However the oil for food program did help in ending the Iraqi
decline and it was continually modified over the years in an
effort to improve its effectiveness.
1750
This effort culminated in December 1999 with the passage of UN
Security Council resolution 1284, which brought even more
sweeping changes to the humanitarian program in Iraq.
These changes included a lifting of the oil ceiling, which
allowed Iraq to sell unlimited quantities of oil, and the
development of pre-approved lists of items that would not need to
be reviewed by the sanctions committee.
These so-called green lists have been expanded continually and
now cover medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, agricultural
equipment, educational materials, water and sanitation equipment,
housing materials, oil spare parts and agricultural items,
effectively lifting UN sanctions on these items.
However, Iraq rejected resolution 1284 and has, where possible,
blocked the implementation of a number of its key humanitarian
provisions.
Despite Baghdad's efforts to weaken the program, there is little
doubt that the impact of the oil for food program and the changes
brought about by resolution 1284 are having a positive impact in
Iraq, as UN secretary general Kofi Annan indicates in his report
of March 2, 2001.
With funding for the humanitarian program at $5 billion to $7 billion
every six months, the UN secretary general noted, “Iraq is in a
position to address urgently the nutritional and health status of
the children of Iraq”.
Whether Iraq will in fact realize and make full use of its
revenue potential to address the needs of its citizens, however,
is an entirely different question. It has already been mentioned
here in the House that Saddam Hussein preferred building houses
for himself to looking after the needs of the people.
Efforts by Baghdad to impose illegal surcharges on oil contracts
slowed Iraqi exports through most of 2000, prompting the UN
secretary general to worry in his report whether sufficient funds
will be available to meet the humanitarian targets in Iraq.
At the same time, concern continues to grow regarding Baghdad's
willingness to spend the humanitarian funds that are available
in a timely manner.
For example, as of January 31, Iraq had contracted for only 21%
of the medical items contained in the distribution list for the
last phase of the program, which had expired at the beginning of
December.
By March, the figure had climbed to only 48%. Education sector
contracts were less than 50% of the allocation, while oil spare
parts contracts amounted to just over 10%.
It appears that this lax attitude towards the program on the
part of the government of Iraq will continue in the current
phase, as Baghdad was more than two months late submitting the
distribution list for phase nine, which began on December 6,
2000.
As a result, by March 31, nearly three months later, there were
no contract applications for health, electricity, water,
sanitation, education or oil spare parts. This is despite the
fact that with around $3 billion currently sitting uncommitted
in the escrow account in New York the financial resources for
these items are clearly available.
The money is there, and the Iraqi government is not using it. It
is very clear that the international community has tried to
mitigate the humanitarian impact of sanctions from the very
beginning. This process continues under the aegis of the United
States, in an effort to better target the Iraq sanctions regime
by easing the import of civilian goods into Iraq, while
tightening the restrictions on military related items.
While the details surrounding this effort are still being
developed within the UN Security Council, the initiative appears
consistent with the approach Canada has long advocated. Canada
will contribute what we can to this process to ensure that the
security goals and humanitarian needs in Iraq are indeed
addressed with equal vigilance and priority.
Better targeting of the Iraq sanctions regimes may seem an
inadequate response for those who see a full lifting of sanctions
as the only solution to the Iraq situation, but the fact remains
that sanctions must continue to be applied in Iraq because the
disarmament job is not complete.
From the earliest days through eight years of UN inspections,
Iraq offered far less than what Baghdad had pledged and the
ceasefire arrangements demanded.
Obstruction, deception and outright lies were daily occurrences,
as Iraq was trying to save key elements of its weapons programs.
1755
The crucial question regarding disarmament efforts is, if Iraq,
as it claims, has honoured its obligations and is not in fact
rebuilding its weapon programs, as a number of recent reports
have claimed, why is it not allowing arms inspectors to verify
its statements on site?
Lifting the sanctions now, while Iraq continues to fail to meet
its obligations to the UN, would send a dangerous message on the
weakness of the international system in the face of a ruthless
and rebellious regime. The international community cannot accept
Iraq's intransigence and its refusal to comply with its
obligations toward the UN.
There is little doubt that left to itself Iraq would again
constitute a serious threat to its neighbours and to the security
of the entire Gulf region. The country is run by one of the
world's cruellest regimes, with a disastrous human rights record.
[English]
The Government of Canada is sympathetic to the objectives which
underlie the motion. While the international community has tried
with increasing success to mitigate the worst effects of the
sanctions and make their humanitarian provisions Saddam-proof,
the Iraqi people have suffered too long. Ultimately sanctions
must be lifted but the option put forward in the motion is not
the way.
[Translation]
Unilateral actions are not the answer. There is a process in
place to achieve the common goal of removing sanctions and it
begins and ends with Iraq's compliance with its international
obligations.
Security demands require that sanctions remain in place until
Iraq meets its obligations, but this does not mean that the
people of Iraq need to bear the full burden. The instruments are
in place to address the pressing needs of Iraq's civilian
population, and efforts are underway to make them more effective.
Pressure must be brought to bear to force the Government of Iraq
to both use the humanitarian tools that are available to their
full potential and abandon its long established policy of
sacrificing the well-being of its population to achieve its
political and military objectives. Baghdad can ensure the return
to normality in Iraq by complying with its UN obligations, and
Canada should do what it can to move Iraq in that direction.
This motion, by rewarding Iraqi intransigence, does the opposite.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, we have a great deal of sympathy
for the people of Iraq and the issue is about the tragedy taking
place there. Our hearts go out to the people of that country who
have been abused far too long by a thuggish, violent, illegal and
brutal leader named Saddam Hussein. This is all about Saddam
Hussein. It is not about the people of Iraq who have suffered
far too long.
I say to the member for Burnaby—Douglas that while we have a
great deal of sympathy for his motion it is naive. It detracts
from the issue which is about dealing with a violent thug called
Saddam Hussein.
In his speech the member for Burnaby—Douglas spent far more
time bashing the United States than dealing with the thug Saddam
Hussein. He spent a good chunk of his time U.S.A. bashing and
not enough time dealing with the major antagonist. That says a
lot about the member and where he is coming from on the issue.
However let us talk about the issue at hand. Saddam Hussein has
caused the brutal deaths of thousands of his people through
torture and summary execution by his own hand and the hands of
others. One and a half million Iraqi civilians have died since
1991. According to UNICEF, 600,000 of them were under five years
of age. Every month 4,500 children die. Maternal mortality
rates are up and have more than doubled since 1991. Child
malnourishment has increased by more than 300% since 1991.
Hospitals, water and the education system are in disarray. Why?
As the hon. member from the government mentioned, Iraq can sell
as much oil as it wants for food. There are more than 660 things
the government can do with no problems whatsoever.
1800
People need education, infrastructure development and
humanitarian supplies in order to live. Why are the conditions
on the ground not improving? They are not improving because
Saddam Hussein is using his own people as pawns in a brutal
political struggle. He is prepared to kill his own people in an
effort to break these sanctions and to rub the nose of the west
in the ground. Saddam Hussein is the rogue. He is the one who is
brutalizing his own people and standing in the way of prosperity,
peace and security for the people of Iraq.
It is interesting to look at the situation in northern Iraq
where there is a no fly zone, as there is in the south. The no
fly zone in the north was meant to protect the Kurds. Why? It
was because Saddam Hussein murdered Kurds using chemical and
biological weapons. That says a lot about the person. It says
that we are dealing with an individual who is prepared, at a
whim, to violate the basic norms of international respect and
international law for his own end. He is prepared to kill and
murder his own people with brutal chemical and biological
weapons. We all saw pictures on television of what happened to
those Kurds.
Saddam Hussein is also trying to murder, and has murdered, the
marsh Arabs in the south. Those people have lived there for
thousands of years and do not want to harm anybody but he has
sent his people in with tanks. He has murdered these people,
destroyed their environment and has tried to drive them out of
their homes. Saddam Hussein is the one killing the Iraqi people,
not the west, not the United Nations and not Canada.
What the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas should be doing is
using his efforts to tell the Iraqi regime that we will not
tolerate that any more. All that Saddam Hussein has to do is to
allow the weapons inspectors to enter his country. He only has
to co-operate with the security council resolutions and the
international community, and we would be happy to work with his
people to improve their health and welfare.
We want the children of Iraq to be educated and the babies to be
healthy. We do not want to see the children of Iraq die from
malnutrition. It is Saddam Hussein who can change that, and
change it overnight. The power to improve the health and welfare
of the Iraqi people rests in his hands.
I am not confident, and I do not believe that anybody in the
House is, that he will do that. However, what would happen if
we were to immediately drop those sanctions? Can we trust Saddam
Hussein to respect international law and to treat his people
well? The fact of the matter is that he is obstructing what is
going on in his country.
It is interesting to note that Saddam Hussein, while his people
are starving, has built over 42 palatial palaces for himself and
his cronies with money that should have been used to feed and
educate the children and improve the water supply. Why is he not
using the $3 billion that he held in a UN escrow account for
water, agriculture and industrial production, as well as for
improving the infrastructure in the country? The facts speak for
themselves.
We have imposed those sanctions with a heavy heart. We do not
want them to continue. As Kofi Annan said, they are a temporary
measure. When the regime in Iraq complies with international law
and allows UN inspectors to enter the country unfettered, and
when it co-operates with the international community, we will
co-operate too. It is not only for the international community
at large but also for the regional security.
Why is it that at the last Arab summit, and where better to find
co-operation or sympathy for Saddam Hussein, Arab leaders gave
only muted and lukewarm support to the lifting of sanctions? The
reason they did that was that they feared for their security.
1805
The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was a graphic example of how this
individual is prepared to be a security threat in the Middle
East. Why is it that his fellow Arab leaders look upon him as a
thug and a bully? Do they embrace him? No, they fear him
because he is unpredictable, violent and willing to abuse people
in his own backyard for his own political gain.
It is sad that he has been able to secure greater control in his
country. We would support other countries in supporting the
opposition forces in Iraq. Unfortunately his secret security
forces have a greater control and a greater hammerlock on the
people. They pick people off the street who later disappear.
They have been doing that for a very long time. It is a reign of
terror.
We cannot imagine the tragedy that the people of Iraq have
endured for so long. To the people of Iraq we say that we want
them to thrive, prosper and live in peace. Their leader has to
either change or he has to comply with the basic norms of
international security. We do this for the people of Iraq and
for ourselves. We do this for basic human rights and for peace.
I hope the member for Burnaby—Douglas can approach the issue in
a pragmatic way to fulfil the basic needs and improve the health
and welfare of the people of Iraq. I hope he invests a lot more
time in shooting his barrels off at Saddam Hussein than at the
United States of America.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to
Motion No. 83 on behalf of my colleague from
Cumberland—Colchester, the Conservative critic for foreign
affairs who is on his own peace mission today in the Middle East
accompanying the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He is pursuing a
very noble peace cause in his own right.
Sanctions were imposed on the Iraqi nation after Iraq
unilaterally invaded Kuwait in 1990. Canada played a leading
role, even a decisive role, in ensuring that the response to
Iraq's aggression occurred under the flag of the United Nations
and not unilaterally. The response of our allies came about in a
very reasoned and well thought out fashion.
The international community believed it was essential to impose
sanctions as a means of keeping Iraq in check and to improve the
lot of that nation by forcing the brutal and sadistic Saddam
Hussein to stop his oppressions. The United Nations action
including the sanctions forced Iraq out of Kuwait. The sanctions
had a positive effect in that they curbed military and other
aggressions that might very well have occurred.
The evidence suggests that the lot of the Iraqi people has not
improved. The real issue is the suffering of human beings. The
situation among Iraq's people is tragic. There is no denying
that reality. Poverty, malnutrition and depleted social services
such as health care are leaving their indelible marks. The
situation is wretched and dismal.
UNICEF figures indicate that 4,500 children are dying every
month from lack of food and decent health care. Thousands of
people, and some sources are putting the number at over one
million, have died since these sanctions were put in place. All
this has occurred under the negligent and oppressive leadership
or lack of leadership of Saddam Hussein.
United Nations resolution No. 96 that deals specifically with
food in exchange for oil allows between $1.5 billion and $2
billion for food. This fund is administered by the United
Nations and the food package consists mostly of carbohydrates for
the malnourished. The program has made a difference but
undeniably there is a long way to go to address other horrific
conditions that exist for the people living in Iraq.
1810
The United Nations sanctions committee can reject goods if it
thinks something might be used for military purposes. This is
cause for concern because it is a contentious and sometimes grey
area. There is a military application for almost anything. Pipes
for sewage could have scores of military uses. It is therefore
sometimes difficult to draw the line.
The bottom line is that sanctions may be keeping Iraq in check
but they are also severely afflicting scores of innocent people,
mostly children, who do not deserve to be punished for something
for which they are not responsible. There are severe
implications for what is taking place. It begs the obvious
question: Why should children be the scapegoats for a conflict
between the international community and the pathological
behaviour of Saddam Hussein?
Saddam Hussein's regime does the Iraqi people no favours in
their struggle for survival and decent healthy living.
Maintaining the people's basic needs is not the totalitarian
regime's number one priority. Saddam Hussein's own standard of
living has certainly not suffered like that of his people, as was
pointed out by the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
The evidence suggests that Mr. Hussein's personal wealth has
continued to escalate. He has continued to build palaces, an
absolutely horrific situation given the poverty and squalor of
his own people who he is supposedly representing. The regime is
irreverent and defiant to the international community and to the
pressures being brought to bear by countries like our own.
We need to determine the true impact of the sanctions and, more
important, the fate of the children. We do not need to argue
about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is
not an academic exercise. We must look at the facts and figures
and the costs in terms of human life, costs which are often
difficult to determine.
Bearing in mind the situation the Iraqi people are facing, it is
clearly time to revisit the state and the nature of the economic
and military sanctions being imposed on Iraq. Is it possible to
get good, sound reliable figures on how well the sanctions are
working? It probably is not. However we should certainly be
able to make a cost analysis of the toll they are taking.
Are the sanctions producing the desired result? Are they
accomplishing goals or meeting ends? These are the questions the
international community must ask persistently. It must ask the
questions openly and honestly with a mind to determining whether
sanctions should continue.
No one in this Chamber or in any legislature can single-handedly
answer these questions. However, they must be addressed in a
fair, open-minded and impartial way and they must be addressed
soon. If not, it will be the demise of the innocent.
This is admittedly not an easy situation. It is difficult to
dissect the issue and remove the variables that directly or
indirectly hurt those innocent people. We cannot sterilize the
issue or look at it in a detached way.
With economic sanctions, as with military sanctions, there are
always innocent bystanders killed or left suffering. The trick
is to distinguish between economic and military sanctions so that
sanctions which primarily hurt civilians can be lifted. Any
sanction, military or otherwise, can inflict collateral damage on
a population. That is occurring in Iraq, and the worst effects
must be identified and dealt with.
The motion says that the Canadian government should lead the
efforts at the United Nations to lift the sanctions. Canada has
an amazing amount of credibility, trust and respect on the world
stage. We have an opportunity to intervene and get the ball
rolling again. What better country to raise the issue in a
serious fashion and to effect results than Canada?
1815
We are the nation of Lester B. Pearson, peacekeepers and in the
fight against apartheid, a nation with a progressive human rights
record. The Conservative Party would certainly support Canada
taking a leading role in opening this dialogue again. It is
paramount that in the short term we find the facts, delve into
our ability to effect change and be a part of the action, not
just to talk about it but to actually try to bring pressures to
bear on those who can immediately impact on this decision. The
situation certainly needs to be addressed in the near future.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak on this
important motion. I thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas for
bringing it to the attention of the House and to all Canadians.
Although I am not the critic in this area, I will certainly
maintain an interest in the issue of sanctions and in the overall
outcome that we hope the United Nations, with Canada playing a
leading role, will embark on in the near future.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise in the House today to wholeheartedly support
the motion brought forward by the member for Burnaby—Douglas.
The work of the member for Burnaby—Douglas has been
outstanding, not just on this issue but also in understanding and
promoting international human rights. He speaks with a great
sense of hope for people in Canada who seek an alternative to
Canada's foreign policy. The member has been a beam of light for
a lot of people in the work that he has undertaken.
I listened with great sadness as he described his personal visit
to Iraq and what he encountered while there.
Members in the House and Canadian enjoy the basic necessities of
life, although there are people in this country who live in
poverty. However what is happening to the people of Iraq is
something that is truly horrifying.
I listened to the debate and was quite alarmed at what I heard.
The member who spoke for the government side and the member who
spoke for the Canadian Alliance were both members of the
committee and, as we heard from the member for Burnaby—Douglas,
were part of the unanimous report that came from that committee
which sought to have these sanctions removed.
It quite alarming that in a committee members can somehow find
the courage and the reason to see the absolute horror and
devastation of what has happened with the sanctions, yet on
another day in the House somehow be in favour of them. In fact
the member for the Alliance characterized the motion as being
naive. I am quite surprised by that. If we look at the impact
of these sanctions, which have been in place for over a decade,
on a civilian population, we see nothing less than the total
destruction of a civil society.
If we followed the Alliance member's reasoning and logic, if we
can call it a logic, then for the net result what would be
success in the eyes of that member? Would it be that every child
has died? Would it be that 50% of the population of children
under five have died? The logic of what is being presented is
actually illogical.
I take issue with the fact that, as we have heard, the target of
the sanctions is Saddam Hussein. If that is so, then there has
to be an agreement that the goal of those sanctions has been a
failure. Here we are 10 years later and the guy is still in
power. Meanwhile the civil society, the infrastructure, the
hospitals, the health care, the water system and everything has
been totally destroyed. I would say to those who have been
proponents of this kind of course of action and this kind of
foreign policy that this has been an abject failure.
In my community of Vancouver East, and in Vancouver generally, I
have received many letters and phone calls from individual
constituents who have been horrified and outraged at the
destruction these sanctions have caused the people of Iraq.
1820
I have personally attended rallies, vigils and meetings. I know
that some of the real activists in Vancouver, people like Linda
Morgan who was very involved in organizing the delegation that
went to Iraq last year, are very committed to an international
campaign of solidarity with people from other countries to draw
attention to what is taking place in this country. As a Canadian
member of parliament, I feel ashamed that our government has so
blindly followed this sanction policy for so many years.
Let us be clear about what the motion before us today says. It
does not say that Canada should take unilateral action. It does
not say that Canada should just strike out on its own. It says
that the Canadian government should lead the efforts at the
United Nations to lift economic sanctions. There are many
Canadians who would see that as a positive, hopeful and powerful
role for the government to play rather than standing by and
watching the devastation take place.
I listened to the news the other day to hear what was going on,
as we all do every day. I made note that the Pope has now called
for lifting of the sanctions. I believe there is a growing
consciousness globally that if this is what we have sunk to as an
international community, if the lowest common denominator of
foreign policy is to basically impose hunger, famine, lack of
medical supplies, lack of education, lack of clean water and if
this is what foreign policy has come to, then where are we in
terms of an international community?
As Canadians we should pause and reflect about our complicity
in these sanctions. I urge members on the government side,
particularly those members who are part of the foreign affairs
committee and who apparently supported the lifting of the
sanctions, to think about what this government policy is doing.
It seems to me that historically after a conflict or war there
is often a period of reconciliation where the international
community comes together to rebuild from the devastation of war.
Yet in this situation not only was there a war that was horrific,
and we could argue that another day in terms of what that was all
about, but another war has unfolded, a war that has been even
more devastating and that has been going on now for 10 years,
which is the war of these sanctions.
Therefore, I feel a sense of deep tragedy about what has taken
place here. I hope the motion today will help draw attention to
the plight of the Iraqi people and to some of the very credible
reports which have been produced by the international community
such as UNICEF, Doctors Without Borders and many others who have
witnessed firsthand what has happened and have given evidence to
their witness of that.
Another point I would like to make is that the member from the
Canadian Alliance made an outrageous statement that the Arab
summit was not in favour of lifting the sanctions, which was
absolutely not the case. That is totally false.
In fact, the Amman Declaration of March 28, from the 13th Arab
summit, clearly stated:
We call for lifting the sanctions on Iraq and for dealing with
the humanitarian issues pertaining to Iraq, Kuwaiti and other
prisoners of war according to the principles of our religion and
national heritage.
Therefore, the Alliance member was clearly false in his
assertion.
In closing, I want to thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas for
bringing forward this issue again; a sane idea, a saner policy
for a humane world where we do not destroy a civil society
because we are trying to get at one person.
I hope the members of this House will consider this motion and,
like the local and national organizations who have worked so
hard, put pressure on our Canadian government to convince it to
be part of an effort to lift these sanctions.
1825
Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Speaker, in the final minutes
of this debate I want to certainly thank my colleague, the member
for Vancouver East, for once again eloquently speaking out for
justice, for human rights, for the rights of the people of Iraq
to live in dignity and in support of this motion for the lifting
of sanctions. I also want to thank my colleague from
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for his very thoughtful comments.
I must say that I am really quite shocked at the fact that not a
single Liberal member of parliament was prepared to stand during
the course of this debate and speak out in support of what
Liberal members voted in favour of during the last parliament.
The foreign affairs committee in that last parliament passed a
motion unanimously with the support of every party, including the
Alliance Party and the Liberals. I see the parliamentary
secretary here who was a member of that committee and voted in
favour of this motion, as did the member for Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca. The motion passed unanimously stated:
Notwithstanding the adoption of security council resolution 1284,
the committee urgently pursue the delinking of economic from
military sanctions with a view to rapidly lifting economic
sanctions in order to significantly improve the humanitarian
situation of the Iraqi people—
That is what the motion today calls for. It is unbelievable
that members who voted in favour of this principle in the last
parliament now are condemning it. How many more innocent Iraqi
lives have been lost over the course of just the last year?
They say we have to maintain these economic sanctions because of
concern about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They ignore
the report that they signed on to. In fact that report states
very clearly, referring to a March 1999 report of the UN expert
panel on disarmament “The bulk of Iraq's prescribed weapons
programs have been eliminated—100% of verification may be an
unattainable goal”.
Indeed the former lead United Nations weapons inspector, Scott
Ritter, has emphatically declared that Iraq was qualitatively
disarmed of weapons of mass destruction from 1991 to 1998. Yet
of course there was no lifting of sanctions.
I have no doubt that if the international community, with Canada
leading in this, were to make it very clear to the Iraqi
government that we were prepared to lift economic sanctions by a
specific and firm date with international guarantees, Iraq would
be prepared to allow the readmission of arms inspectors into that
country and an assurance that any evidence of weapons that were
being produced illegally would be dealt with and dealt with
firmly. However, that is not what is happening here today.
I want to appeal to members once again to recognize the impact
of this. The fact is that we as Canadians are spending some $35
million every year in enforcing these insane and genocidal
sanctions. We have spent over $1 billion since 1991 in this
region. I do not believe that Canadians who know of the impact
of these sanctions on innocent human lives support this for one
minute.
Dennis Halliday, the former United Nations humanitarian
co-ordinator, in speaking of these sanctions said “We are
destroying an entire society. It is as simple and as terrifying
as that”.
He is right. The purpose of this motion is to call for
leadership. It is a tragic coincidence that we are debating this
motion on the eve of Mother's Day. I recall so vividly meeting
many Iraqi mothers who had lost children as a result of these
sanctions. I recall looking into the eyes of an Iraqi mother who
pleaded with me “Why are you killing my innocent child?” I
could not answer that question.
I appeal on the eve of Mother's Day for the international
community and Canada to show leadership to end the impact of
these destructive and genocidal sanctions and ensure that no more
children, no more innocent people in Iraq, die as a result of
these sanctions. That is my plea. That was the unanimous plea
of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade in its report.
1830
In closing, I seek unanimous consent of the House at this time
that this motion might be made votable so at the very least the
House could debate the issue and ensure that Canadians are given
an opportunity to be heard in the committee on a profoundly
important issue of life and death.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hour provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired.
Since the motion was not deemed votable, the item is dropped
from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
TRADE
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I rise on another very important subject, the subject of
democracy and the growing assault by corporate powers on
democracy in the context of NAFTA and the proposed FTAA
agreement.
On February 20 of this year I asked a question of the Minister
for International Trade concerning Metalclad Corporation, which
was at that time before the British Columbia supreme court
defending its NAFTA right to run a toxic waste dump in Mexico,
ignoring the health and environmental concerns of elected local
and state governments.
I asked the Liberal government to
intervene in this case and to speak out strongly against the
impact of the chapter 11 investor state provision in NAFTA in
these circumstances. I held a press conference with CUPE and
Greenpeace pointing out the impact of chapter 11, the investor
state provision, on democracy itself.
In this case members of the small Mexican community of
Guadalcazar said they did not want to allow a toxic waste dump in
their community. They had already seen the impact on their
children and on the environment of the existing toxic waste
facility there. They said no and Metalclad under the investor
state provisions of NAFTA sued the government of Mexico.
Just a
few days ago we learned that it had won before a secret tribunal
and the B.C. supreme court just upheld the award of millions of
dollars. This is an outrage and an attack on democracy itself.
Once again I call on the Canadian government today to speak out
clearly and strongly against an investor state provision in the
FTAA. The Minister for International Trade said he was opposed
to it last year. Now he says he is in favour of it. He says it
has worked well. In fact it has not worked well at all in the
case of MMT and Ethyl Corporation, in the suit by United Parcel
Service against the public post office in Canada and in a number
of other cases such as the Methanex case. We as New Democrats
say that this corporate attack on democracy has to stop.
More and more local councils are recognizing this as well. The
city of Ottawa just passed a motion calling on the Canadian
government not to sign any trade deal that includes this kind of
investor state provision. The city of Vancouver was the first to
do that.
I am calling today on our government to show that leadership and
make it very clear that we believe in democracy. We still do not
know the position of the Government of Canada. It has not posted
any position on investment on its website. The text that was
supposed to have been made public is still secret. We are still
waiting for that text to be made public.
Ultimately, democracy, human rights and the environment must
come ahead of corporate power and corporate profits. There must
be no chapter 11 investor state provision. Metalclad made that
very clear. The people of Mexico, the people of Canada, the
people of the Americas are saying no to this attack on democracy.
I call today on the government to defend democracy itself.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I must say the
member certainly managed to refer to several of his questions in
his four minutes, so I took some notes and I would like to reply
to what he said.
1835
The member claims the Minister for International Trade said that
he was opposed to an investment clause. That is not correct. The
minister and the Right Hon. Prime Minister have repeatedly said
that given the full context of Canada's trade with the United
States the clause works reasonably well.
However the Government of Canada is actively seeking
clarification with its NAFTA partners, specifically the Minister
for International Trade with his counterpart ministers, to limit
the interpretation some adjudicating bodies have given to chapter
11 which expands its scope beyond the intention of the three
partners.
The member says that the government has no position on
investment. The fact is we are still consulting with
stakeholders. We are anxious to see all the positions of the
other countries. We will not short circuit the process of
consultation. When the government is good and ready with its
position it will be publicly announced to Canadians and available
on the website.
As for the text to which the member refers, Canada submitted the
text in French at Buenos Aires for translation. We are awaiting
the Portuguese text. When all the translations are done and when
the secretariat of the FTAA which is now in charge of it has the
four texts, it will release them at once.
One would think the sky was falling to listen to the member for
Burnaby—Douglas. There have been a grand total of six cases.
One was just withdrawn. We have done quite well whenever we have
been challenged under chapter 11.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.)