37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 068
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 30, 2001
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| ARMENIA
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| QUEBEC BIOTECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CENTRE
|
| Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
| CRASDALE FARMS
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1405
| OWENS-CORNING
|
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1410
| LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| MACK ALUMNI ASSOCIATION
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1415
| NATIONAL BIG SISTERS DAY
|
| Mr. Gurbax Malhi |
| DISABILITY AWARENESS WEEK
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
| YOUNG OFFENDERS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| MINISTER OF FINANCE
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1440
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1445
| LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| ENERGY INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1450
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. James Rajotte |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. James Rajotte |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1455
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| SPORTS
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1500
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| AIR CANADA
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| CHIEF OF DEFENCE STAFF
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| STATUTES OF CANADA
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1505
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Industry, Science and Technology
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-355. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| TOBACCO YOUTH PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill S-15. First reading
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1510
| MAIN ESTIMATES
|
| The Speaker |
| Motion
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Official Languages
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Motion for concurrence
|
1515
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Bill S-15
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1520
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1525
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1530
1535
1540
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1545
1550
1555
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1600
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1605
| PETITIONS
|
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Lawrence O'Brien |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Labelling of Alcoholic Beverages
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1610
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-11. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
| Motions in amendment
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 1
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Motions Nos. 2 and 3
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 4
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1615
1620
| Mr. Joe Fontana |
1625
1630
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1635
1640
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1645
1650
| Mr. John Herron |
1655
1700
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1705
1710
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1715
1720
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1725
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-209. Second reading
|
| Mr. John McCallum |
1735
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1740
1745
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1750
1755
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1800
1805
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1810
1815
| Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
1820
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1825
1830
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Finance
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1835
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 068
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 30, 2001
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[English]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ARMENIA
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday evening members of parliament and diplomats
joined with the Armenian ambassador and members of the Armenian
community to celebrate the 83rd anniversary of the independence
of the Armenian first republic.
Today, Armenia is a proud and independent country controlling
its own destiny on the world stage. Following the genocide of
the Armenians during the turmoil of the first world war and its
aftermath, independence was gained from the Ottoman Empire on May
28, 1918.
Tragically, freedom was short lived. December 2, 1920 was the
beginning of 70 years of tyranny at the hands of the communists.
The 1918 independence, though brief, was the foundation of the
modern Armenian state. Armenia regained its independence on
September 21, 1991, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R.
Today, the survivors who immigrated to Canada and the
contribution they and their children have made to our nation
enrich our society in many diverse ways. Canadians of Armenian
descent continue to use their talents to build a better Canada
through the arts and sciences as well as in business and in every
walk of life.
* * *
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-7, the new youth criminal justice act has finally
left this place. Unfortunately for Canadians it will, in the
opinion of many, ultimately turn out to be worse than the much
reviled Young Offenders Act that it is intended to replace.
The provinces who must administer the youth law have said that
the federal government failed to properly consult and that no
proper cost analysis was ever conducted.
The new act is riddled with discretions and loopholes. Its
sheer complexity will lead to delays and soaring legal aid bills
to the taxpayer. Violent and repeat offenders will be eligible
for extra judicial measures. That is another term for avoiding
court in favour of community programs.
Maximum custodial youth sentences for serious violent offences
will actually be reduced. Murder, manslaughter, attempted murder
and aggravated sexual assault will be presumed serious enough for
adult sentences, maybe. Sexual assault with a weapon, armed
robbery and kidnapping will not.
The government has taken over seven years to produce legislation
that is doomed to failure. Unfortunately it is mainly our youth
who will pay the price, and that is sad.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC BIOTECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CENTRE
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week I represented the Secretary of State responsible for
Canada's economic development at the fifth anniversary of the Quebec
Biotechnology Innovation Centre, which is located in Laval,
Quebec.
I was just amazed at how worthwhile and successful the business
incubator approach has been. Inaugurated in 1996, the Quebec
Biotechnology Innovation Centre in Laval has already been
instrumental in the development and business success of eleven
companies.
I was able to make the announcement that this organization would
be receiving $350,000 in financial assistance, and I can tell
hon. members that this funding from the Government of Canada was
greatly appreciated by chairman of the board, Jacques Gagné, CEO
Normand de Montigny and all the team.
Congratulations to the people of Laval and long live their
Quebec Biotechnology Innovation Centre.
* * *
[English]
CRASDALE FARMS
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am most
pleased to congratulate Athol and Brian Craswell of Crasdale
Farms of South Rustico, Prince Edward Island upon receiving the
master breeder award presented annually by Holstein breeders
across Canada.
This honour to Crasdale Farms marks the fifth time ever that a
Prince Edward Island farm has been a recipient of this
prestigious award. Crasdale Farms is the only recipient this
year for all of Atlantic Canada.
The award symbolizes one of the key components of the strengths
of the Canadian dairy industry, that is exceptional breeding
practices. The award itself is based upon the accumulation of
points earned by animals bred by a farmstead that remain in
Canada.
1405
I congratulate the Craswell family for a job well done and for
receiving this recognition. They indeed should be proud.
* * *
OWENS-CORNING
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to congratulate
and honour the management and staff of the Owens-Corning Guelph
glass plant on the occasion of the plant's 50th anniversary.
Friday, May 25 kicked off the two day celebration with employees
and members of the community coming together for an open house
and barbeque. Tours of the operation and product displays were
another highlight offered to all who came.
I am very pleased that Owens-Corning chose to reside in my
riding. Owens-Corning is a valued member of my community and it
is also recognized internationally as a good corporate citizen
and a global leader. Not only does Owens-Corning maintain high
environmental standards and encourage environmental performance
goals within the company but it also gives back to our community
in which it resides through its support of organizations such as
Habitat for Humanity, the United Way and the Easter Seals
Society.
I offer my congratulations to Owens-Corning and I wish them
every success in Guelph for the next 50 years and more.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we all know about the ongoing
malignant environmental catastrophe at the Sydney tar ponds in
Cape Breton.
Millions have been spent since the 1980s to determine the
negative effects of the tar ponds and on the ineffective cleanup.
A week ago the government announced yet another plan. It will be
testing, analyzing, carrying out risk assessments, holding
meetings and creating more plans. This removes no one from
harm's way.
The government has no common sense priority for spending. A
month ago $560 million was given to the ministry of propaganda,
oh, I mean the department of heritage, to spend on things like a
virtual Internet museum when our museums already have Internet
sites.
Some $10 million was spent in my riding to relocate the families
of the Ahaminaquus Indian Reserve away from pulp mill discharges.
Does the government think that the people of Cape Breton are less
worthy?
* * *
FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take the opportunity to congratulate my municipal
colleagues from coast to coast to coast on a very successful
conference in Banff last weekend.
It was the 64th annual conference of the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities which has been the national voice of municipal
government since 1901. The FCM is dedicated to improving the
quality of life in communities and promoting strong, effective
and accountable municipal government.
Representing Canada's largest cities through to the smallest
rural and remote communities, our elected municipal leaders work
tirelessly on behalf of their constituents to ensure their
quality of life.
The government has an impressive relationship in listening and
working with municipal governments across the country: the
adoption of a national infrastructure program; the establishment
of $125 million green enabling fund; the 20% club; the reduction
of CO2 emissions over 10 years; the payments in lieu of taxes
legislation; urban crime; community safety programs, and I could
go on.
I would like to thank Joanne Monaghan for her tireless work as
president—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Quebec.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois tour of the various regions of Quebec in connection
with Bill C-7 has garnered more support for a definite no to the
Minister of Justice as far as the content of her young offender
legislation is concerned.
I would remind hon. members of the repressive approach of this
bill, which runs counter to Quebec's current rehabilitation based
approach to young offenders.
I would like to express particular thanks to a young actor who
volunteered his time to the tour and made a tangible contribution
to raising public awareness of the impact of the federal
legislation.
Marc Beaupré, who plays Kevin in the popular series Deux
Frères, spent some time with prisoners in order to get into his
role, and has called our prisons schools for crime. He made an
impassioned argument for the importance of vehemently opposing
Bill C-7. His message could be summarized as follows “Young
offenders will turned into criminals instead of being helped”.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I thank Marc Beaupré for his
commitment, and for his generosity in particular.
* * *
1410
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe
Saint-Charles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to mention the
presence in Ottawa of the Liberal candidates of the province of
Quebec in the last federal election.
Despite defeat, they are here today because each of them
believes in our democracy and the importance of the role of MP.
These men and women are Canadians convinced of the need to work
for our country's unity. They have put time and energy into
making their experience and their knowledge available to their
fellow citizens. Working with them during the campaign was
rewarding, and we all came out winners.
In every election there are winners and defeated candidates.
This message is for them. I thank them for coming to meet us.
I ask them to continue their social involvement and follow their goals.
Tenacity brings victory closer.
* * *
[English]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government has just
passed a replacement for the Young Offenders Act called the youth
criminal justice act. If there was ever an example of why the
government is not competent to govern, then this is it.
Although many political analysts admit that the Liberals are
without principle, the bill is the technical evidence that the
Liberals have no canopy of principles to find a moral compass of
direction.
The passage of this type of bill says that millions of
signatures on petitions mean nothing. It means that safer
communities or support for the provinces, with their
constitutional responsibilities for social welfare and children
in need of care and protection, are to be overruled. The
government has imposed a central system agenda over the people's
agenda.
Through the bill the Liberals show that they are out of touch
with average Canadians and are not competent to govern.
* * *
MACK ALUMNI ASSOCIATION
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday, June 1, the Mack Alumni Association celebrates its 100th
anniversary.
The St. Catharines Training School and Nurses' Residence was
founded in 1874 by Dr. Theophilus Mack and was the first school
for nurses in Canada under the Nightingale system. The alumni
association was founded 26 years later.
The school continued until 1969 when government regulations
precipitated changes. The new Mack School of Nursing carried on
at the college level until 1974 when the last class of nurses
graduated. That year the school ceased to exist and the nursing
school was incorporated with Niagara College.
During its 100 years of existence, 1,862 persons graduated from
the Mack nursing program. The alumni association has done much
to keep the Mack tradition alive and I am sure the association
will remain viable as long as there are living graduates.
I congratulate the Mack Alumni Association on its 100th
anniversary and I look forward to participating in its
celebrations this weekend.
* * *
PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I had the
honour of taking part in an important work of performance art.
I walked on the picket line with members of local 70397 of the
Public Service Alliance of Canada who have been on strike at the
National Gallery of Canada and the Canadian Museum of
Contemporary Photography since May 10.
They have painted their picket duty worn shoes bright red and
placed them on the line beside them as visual reminders of their
uniqueness and as a symbol of their passion and solidarity.
These 200 men and women do all of the preparation work for the
exhibits as well as serve the visiting public from across Canada
and around the world. They enjoy the work they do and they take
pride in the quality and professionalism of the service they
provide.
All they are seeking is the same wage increase given to their
colleagues at other national museums. It is time that their
employer recognized that they are equal to their counterparts at
the Canada Aviation Museum and the Canada Science and Technology
Museum. It is time to give this hardworking, proud group of
cultural workers the recognition they have earned and so deserve.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal government denies through
its actions having given verbal support for maintaining the
supply management system.
When the Minister for International Trade issues import permits
for additional breaded cheese sticks above the negotiated tariff
quota, he is working against dairy producers, who asked him to
stop issuing these permits.
Dairy producers do not think the federal government is honouring
its commitment to defend and maintain supply management. They
criticize the federal government's refusal to protect rights it
enjoys under the WTO.
They also want the Minister for International Trade to stop
discussions with the states on reciprocal cheese stick access,
which were initiated without the consultation of dairy producers
in Canada.
The Minister for International Trade represents a riding in
Quebec which leads in Canada's dairy production, a fine example
of the erratic defence of Quebec's interests by a federal
minister from Quebec.
* * *
1415
[English]
NATIONAL BIG SISTERS DAY
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this Saturday is National Big Sisters
Day. Big Sisters of Canada has programs in more than 300
Canadian communities.
Women volunteer their time to become mentors to youngsters who
can greatly benefit from having an adult role model to look up
to. This program is a great success. Children who have been in
the program go on to graduate from high school at a rate of 20%
higher than the national average.
I commend the work of Big Sisters of Canada and I encourage the
constituents of Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale to volunteer
and support the riding's local branch, Big Sisters of Peel.
* * *
DISABILITY AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, in New Brunswick this week citizens will open their
minds and communities by celebrating Disability Awareness Week,
May 27 to June 2. The focus of this week's events is: Be
active, be safe, be healthy.
In New Brunswick over 127,000 citizens have some kind of
disability. They range from persons in wheelchairs to persons
with less obvious disabilities such as hearing loss, epilepsy,
learning or developmental disabilities.
Each day thousands of New Brunswickers struggle to cope with
their disabilities while trying to get an education, get a job,
perhaps have a family and live productive lives in their
communities.
I congratulate all New Brunswickers for participating in this
campaign of awareness.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, despite the government's assurances
to the contrary, we now know that the process to acquire new
helicopters has actually been riddled with political
interference.
The vice-chief of defence staff has instructed military planners
to ensure that the new helicopters would not even have the combat
capability of the aging 40 year old Sea Kings. Even the Federal
Court of Canada says that there has been “patent
politicization” of this process.
Why has the government interfered in this important process?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we need to replace the helicopters. There will be a
bid. Every company that can provide the equipment we need will
be invited to submit a bid. We want to have the best helicopters
at the best price possible to do the job that needs to be done.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, a fleet of helicopters is essential to
our defence as well as to rescue operations.
Yesterday, the government promised us that there was no
political interference in the contract awarding process.
Will the Prime Minister admit in the House what everyone already
suspects, which is that he cancelled, at considerable expense,
the EH-101 helicopter contract negotiated by the Progressive
Conservatives eight years ago, and now he is preventing this same
company from getting the contract?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
of course, in 1993, the government was looking at a deficit of
$42 billion. The government could not afford helicopters back
then.
Later we put out tenders for helicopters to patrol Canada's
shores. Bids were submitted and one company won the contract.
Now we need helicopters for another purpose. This purpose was
carefully described for all those wishing to tender a bid. What
we want is a helicopter that can do the job very well, but at the
lowest cost possible, because this is not our money, but
taxpayers' money.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, they will not be able to do the same
work, and that is very clear.
The safety of Canada's military personnel is being jeopardized
by the aging fleet and also by what it appears the government
will be ordering.
1420
We need to send a signal not only to our NATO partners but, more
important, to our military personnel that we support our armed
forces in this country.
Why is the Prime Minister allowing the possible purchase of
helicopters that will not even be able to perform as well as the
40 year old fleet that is there now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we need a helicopter to do some operations. These
operations have been described and they have been made public.
Now those who produce helicopters will bid on the contract.
Different companies build helicopters and different helicopters
are used in different countries. The United States does not use
the same type of helicopter as Great Britain. France does not
use the same helicopter as another country.
What we want is a good helicopter at the lowest price possible.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, an internal Department of National
Defence document contradicts the defence minister's statement of
yesterday. The document states that the required endurance of a
mission to aid a vessel in distress could well be greater than
three hours. Need I state that a rescue mission 50 miles short
is no rescue at all?
Why would we politically compromise safety, go against advice
and put lives at risk for a helicopter with only a two hour and
twenty minute endurance? Why?
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the world is changing
so we must plan. Maybe this comes as a surprise to the
opposition but we must plan for future force requirements, not
1960s' technology but 2005 technology. The new helicopters will
meet Canada's national defence policy.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, public safety and domestic
emergencies are not only cold war urgencies, they are minimum
requirements for day to day needs. The minister believes that
the cold war seeking rescue standards should be greater than
those of today.
Why are standards being downgraded? What price are lives today?
Poor political decisions unnecessarily risk lives. Why has the
minister lowered himself to politicizing not only the lives of
our military men and women but also the civilians they may be
sent out to rescue?
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Randy White: The world is changing.
Mr. John O'Reilly: I am glad the member noticed.
There is no distance requirement in the new helicopter analysis.
The fact of the matter is that a 30 minute fuel reserve, a 2 hour
and 20 minute or 30 minute difference can be changed by climatic,
operational and other conditions. The helicopters will be chosen
on the basis of what the military has asked for, and that is
exactly what they will get. The helicopters will be the very
best, at the very best price and they will do the job that the
Canadian forces needs them to do.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister pledged to review the new Young
Offenders Act in a year if it poses problems.
This is much too long, because the situation is clear: Quebecers
are unanimous in condemning an act that jeopardizes the
rehabilitation of young offenders.
If the Prime Minister is not powerless as he said yesterday, why
does he not immediately amend the act to allow Quebec to apply
the existing act, which is useful to everyone, instead of waiting
one year and creating thousands of young victims?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the bill was passed. The new act is very good for Quebec and it
will allow the Quebec government to apply its system.
The Bloc members keep referring to some kind of unanimity, but
we reviewed this bill, the Liberal members of this House examined
it, and we are satisfied that it is what is needed at this point
in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
judges are not satisfied, defence counsels are not satisfied,
crown attorneys are not satisfied, nor are police officers,
educators, social workers and members of the Quebec Liberal
Party. That is a lot of people. The Prime Minister himself told
us that his act could be terrible.
Instead of assessing the risk, instead of doing its homework,
the government claims that it is the only one to understand the
situation. Instead of experimenting at the expense of
young people, will the Prime Minister admit that his government
should have done some thinking before legislating instead of the
other way around?
1425
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we spent four years thinking about this issue, unlike them, whose
minds were made up beforehand.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister says that the law is clear and that Quebec
will be able to continue with its approach.
It does not seem as clear as all that to the deputy director of
youth protection, who has said that with this bill, 1% of youths
are being sent to prison, where they can improve their skills as
criminals, while we are losing the opportunity of intervening
with the other 99%.
Does the Prime Minister understand that the new young offenders
legislation is clear? From now on, by placing the emphasis on the
1% of young people involved in serious crime, we are, to all
intents and purposes, abandoning the other 99% to their fate.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member continues to
misrepresent the intention and effect of the new youth criminal
justice legislation. He talks about rehabilitation and
reintegration. In fact, our new legislation puts an increased
emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration. We will provide
additional resources to the government of Quebec to do just that.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I will give the Prime Minister another example so that he will
understand clearly.
One weekend, a youngster steals a car, without giving it any
thought in advance, and another steals a car in a very
premeditated way on behalf of organized crime.
We have two very different behaviours involving the same
offence, and therefore two very different approaches applied to
the young offenders. With the minister's new law, however,
everyone is the same, everyone is on the same footing.
Does the Prime Minister realize that for everyone in Quebec
there is a difference between these two and that the law must be
enforced differently, which the present Young Offenders Act
allows?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
It is impossible for the Chair to hear what the hon. Minister of
Justice is saying.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member misrepresents
the intention and effect of the legislation. Far from being
uniform in its effect, one of the main considerations we ask
police, judges and others working with young people to take into
account is the particular circumstance of the young person who
has committed the offence.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
Across the country, people are calling increasingly for a
national infrastructure program for drinking water.
On the weekend, the Canadian Federation of Municipalities called
for a permanent program and national water standards. The
government's present program is not adequate. Everyone agrees on
that.
Is the government going to act and put an adequate new drinking
water program in place?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have an infrastructure program at the moment, and its total cost
is $7 billion. As a priority, we have set green infrastructures,
where we can improve air and water quality.
As the result of our agreements with the provinces, at least 50%
of the money will be dedicated to this very problem, about $3
billion. This speaks of this government's commitment.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government refuses to recognize a crisis when it is staring them
in the face. The minister pretends that the existing
infrastructure program meets the need but she knows it is not
true. Seventeen hundred municipal officials said so on the
weekend. Saskatchewan's premier said so yesterday. Hundreds of
thousands of Canadians who cannot drink their own drinking water
safely know it to be so.
The water quality crisis is plaguing more and more Canadians.
What will it to take for the government to act?
1430
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the weekend we also had discussions with the mayors. I
think four cabinet ministers were there for the discussions with
the mayors. They agreed with us and they were pleased with our
new program of infrastructure.
In the agreement that we have with them, a minimum of 50% of the
funds should go to the green infrastructure, but it could be more
than that. They agree with us also that it is not only an
investment of money but that we should look at innovation and
technology. We share with them their concern and we will help
them to solve the problems.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the Prime Minister about helicopters. The
government is buying helicopters that cannot stay in the air long
enough in bad weather. His parliamentary secretary said he
justifies that because times are changing.
One thing that has not changed is an estimate by the Department
of National Defence that says in bad weather helicopters might
have to stay in the air at least three hours. That is longer
than these helicopters can stay in the air in order to perform
rescues 100 miles offshore the Atlantic coast. What is the
policy of the government? Is it just going to let—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said earlier, we want to have a helicopter at the
best possible price that can do the job.
There are different operations around the world by different
countries and they do not all have only one type of helicopter.
That means that many different types of helicopters can do the
job. We want a helicopter that can do the job, because we did
not make a deal like they did seven years ago.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
we had a helicopter like that and the government cancelled it.
What it is now proposing to do is to buy a helicopter that cannot
save Canadians at sea.
The Prime Minister knows that when the government opened bidding
to replace the Labrador it asked KPMG and Justice Dubin to
conduct a review of the competitive process. In the case of the
Sea King, the government has split the contract.
Has there been either an internal or an external study of the
feasibility, the risk analysis, the fairness or the cost of the
split? I ask because the department says there has not been.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not want the hon. member to die. We want to have
the best price. We want the best price for the helicopter and we
want the best price for the equipment.
If we have the equipment at the best price and the helicopter at
the best price, the total package will be at the best price.
We do that because we are very preoccupied with spending the
money well that taxpayers pay to the government.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the government is the one that put the hell in
helicopter. According to the last edition of Jane's Defence
Weekly Canada's navy is participating in a working group of
the maritime theatre ballistic missile defence forum. It is a
group designed to enlist allies to make missile defence
effective.
Why is Canada participating in the missile defence forum when
the Prime Minister is running around telling everyone that no
decision has been made yet to support missile defence, let alone
participate in it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, unlike others I want to know what I am against or for,
so I am sending people to find out the reality. When they report
on the reality the government will be able to make a decision.
We want to know the facts first. That is not what they do in
the Alliance.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that the Canadian navy is already
participating in a group that is designed to make missile defence
effective. I do not know if the Prime Minister has a clue on what
he is talking about.
A U.S. admiral who is involved in this says that the U.K.
currently does not have a policy decision on missile defence.
That is why it is not involved in the forum.
We are involved in the forum. Does that mean that Canada has
made a decision on missile defence? If so, why the charade? Why
is he pretending?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have not made up our mind. We want to know what the
policy will be. We want to know what the Americans want to do.
I am not a person who does not want to know the facts. I want
to know the facts. After that I will come back to cabinet and to
the House of Commons, and a decision will be made. I will not
pretend that I am not doing my job because I want to know all the
facts.
* * *
1435
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has just let us know what his vision of Quebec is.
It does not matter what judges, the police, lawyers, social
workers, youth centres, the Liberal Party of Quebec, and the
whole national assembly think about the young offenders issue.
Ottawa knows how things should be done in Quebec.
Does the Prime Minister realize that his vision of Quebec has
not kept pace with the times? It will not fly. Ignoring a
social consensus such as the one Quebec has reached on this issue
is behaviour unbefitting a Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member, who voted against distinct society in the
national assembly and in the Parliament of Canada, has risen in
his place to say that we do not understand Quebec.
Quebecers want to stay in Canada and Quebecers know very well
that the criminal code is the responsibility of the Canadian
government. They know very well that we are always there to do
our job.
I am certain that the bill passed yesterday by the House of
Commons will fully meet the needs of Quebecers and of all
Canadians.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when this
party voted against the Prime Minister's resolution, it was
because it was not worth the paper it was written on.
By refusing to accept a consensus, which was unanimous in
Quebec, has the Prime Minister not just shown us that it is true
that his distinct society resolution was not worth the paper on
which it was written? Once again, he has deceived us.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We are wasting time.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when we tell them that they voted against distinct society, the
Bloc Quebecois does not like it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: I would also point out to the member
that we too are speaking with Quebecers. They know that we have
laws in Canada which are fair for everyone. They also know that
this legislation will be very good, in Quebec as well as in the
rest of Canada. Quebecers also know that the Bloc Quebecois did
not win the majority of the votes in the last election.
* * *
MINISTER OF FINANCE
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance, who is a Quebec member of
parliament, attended a partisan meeting of the Ontario wing of
the Liberal Party, with two assistants.
We learned that the cost of this trip done for partisan purposes
was paid by the Department of Finance, and therefore by Canadian
taxpayers.
Since the Minister of Finance is the one who manages public
funds, will he do the honourable thing and pay back his
department for his own partisan expenses?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
best thing to do is to go over my schedule.
I got there late on a Friday evening, and attended a few
functions. On Saturday morning, after breakfast, I had a meeting
with the president of a very important manufacturing company from
the Hamilton region; later, I met a number of citizens who had
particular issues.
Afterwards, I met with a local farmers' association, tobacco
producers who were experiencing problems. Finally, I attended a
meeting on major policies, before heading back to Montreal.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
That is a good one, Mr. Speaker. We all know what the finance
minister was doing in Hamilton: schmoozing with future Liberal
delegates.
What is the Prime Minister doing to get under control not just
the finance minister but his leadership rivals who are
criss-crossing the country at departmental taxpayer expense for
partisan activities? Will he put an end to this practice and ask
the finance minister to pay for his leadership campaign out of
his leadership funds?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance gave a very good explanation.
However last year that member of parliament spent all the points
he had to campaign across the country against the leader of the
day.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la
Mitis.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Minister for International Trade said,
with regard to cheese sticks, that it was not his intention to
make a habit or a rule to exceed the quotas that were agreed on.
Why then is the minister trying to conclude a reciprocity
agreement with the United States when it would be so easy to
comply with the quotas that have already been negotiated?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been
absolutely no change in government policy on the issue of cheese
sticks for the last 20 years.
We are now in active negotiations and discussions. The minister
has raised this matter with trade representative Zoellick. We
will see further development on it, but there is absolutely no
change. This is not some sudden new problem.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we can only let things go so far.
Canada is letting in cheese sticks imports beyond the agreed
quota of 5%. We are now at 7%, yet the government calls that no
change.
Why is the government adversely affecting the Canadian industry
when our producers can meet domestic demand?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me try again.
Maybe, if the member's blood pressure would calm down, she could
listen to exactly what I did say. There has been no change in
government policy on this matter for the last 20 years. No
change.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
last Sunday Lisa Dillman and two young girls aged five and six
became psychological victims of the justice system of Canada. I
was there as these two little girls cried and clung to their
mother's leg as they entered the Bowden penitentiary to visit
their pedophile father. An RCMP officer in the prison was in
tears.
How can the government brag about human rights and about
protecting children? Will the minister change the law now and
call it Lisa's law so that no children anywhere in Canada will be
forced to visit sexual predators in jail ever again?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we all share the member's
concern for Mrs. Dillman and her two children.
What I find very disturbing is that the official opposition
would suggest that any minister, but in particular the Minister
of Justice and Attorney General, would interfere with an order of
the court.
In fact Mr. Justice Foster in his judgment on Friday suggested
that Mrs. Dillman should return to the courts of Saskatchewan
where there is jurisdiction over this matter and ask for a
variation of the custody and access order.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is too late to change the law for these two little
girls. They have already suffered a psychological impact. I am
talking about future cases.
This is a single mother of four receiving no child support. She
has received $50 since 1998 from Schneeberger. The legal bills
are almost impossible for this lady.
Schneeberger is serving a federal sentence in a federal prison
and the Divorce Act is a federal issue. It is the Minister of
Justice's responsibility to make sure this never ever happens
again. All of us know that these girls are being psychologically
impacted.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to the
Divorce Act. If one looks at the Divorce Act it is very clear
that in making custody and access orders the court shall take
into consideration only the best interests of the children.
1445
I would suggest yet again that in this case Mrs. Dillman return
to the courts in Saskatchewan, as Mr. Justice Foster suggested,
and seek a variation of the access order.
* * *
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier this year the Library of Parliament issued a request for
proposals for electronic news monitoring. A local firm referred
the request for proposals to the Canadian International Trade
Tribunal which agreed to review the matter. The case has not yet
been heard, and certainly not ruled upon, yet the library insists
on a June 1 deadline for filing proposals.
Since this is a rather important service for members of
parliament, would the spokesperson for the Board of Internal
Economy tell the House if the board has been seized of this issue
and if not, will it be before June 1?
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, normally the Board of Internal Economy would not deal
with matters relating to the Library of Parliament. However,
since this does deal with services to members and is related to
the information technology services of the House of Commons, I
would be pleased to raise it with the board when it meets later
this afternoon.
I would also suggest that the member raise it with the chair of
the Library of Parliament committee and have the Library of
Parliament committee meet to deal with it as well.
* * *
ENERGY INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Prime
Minister will remember that Liberal governments were concerned
about the level of foreign ownership in the energy industry.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, given the purchase of Gulf by
American interests, whether this is any cause for concern on the
part of the Prime Minister. Given the energy policies of George
Bush, I wonder if he could indicate what level of foreign
ownership the government would find unacceptable given the
attention that Americans are now paying to Canadian resources.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows that both the investment act and
the Competition Act apply here. An independent and arm's length
assessment will be done with respect to the delivery of both
those acts.
With respect to the level of foreign ownership, the fact is that
it is far less today than it was 20 years ago.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the devastating impact of mercury on children has been
well known for years. That is why the list of health experts who
are appalled by the government's failure to protect Canadians
from mercury in fish is growing daily. One leading international
expert on environmental health has called the need for precaution
in this area an absolute no-brainer.
Will the health minister now mobilize the brains of Health
Canada to take measures to keep mercury contaminated fish off the
grocery shelves of Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Health Canada has had for some time guidelines for mercury levels
in fish that are among the most prudent in the world. In fact we
are at half of the American permissible levels. That has been in
place for years.
In addition we have consumer advisories for those fish that are
rarely consumed, such as swordfish, shark and uncanned tuna.
Those advisories draw to the attention of people who should take
care that they ought to eat very little. That is a wise use of
our resources to protect the health of Canadians.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
less than two weeks ago the Minister of National Defence told the
House that a private company had been hired to bring home our
military equipment from Eritrea.
At the time the minister stated that the company, Lewis and
Clark, was the only company that had the kind of expertise
needed. If this company had that expertise, could the minister
explain why the tender was cancelled last Monday morning and then
reissued on Tuesday afternoon? What were the technical reasons
for the cancellation?
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be more than
happy to take the member's question under advisement and get back
to him at a very early time.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Given
the complexity and the mixture of subjects contained in omnibus
Bill C-15 currently stalled on the order paper, the sections
respecting child pornography and sexual exploitation of children
clearly should have formed the subject matter of a separate bill.
Protection of Canada's children should be paramount. Why is this
subject not a priority for the government?
Will the Minister of Justice simply remove the controversial
cruelty to animal provisions and the firearms provisions to allow
the bill speedy passage through the House before the summer
recess?
1450
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member and
other colleagues for their representations in that regard.
There were negotiations yesterday and others as late as a few
minutes ago. I will endeavour to continue these negotiations and
perhaps we can find a satisfactory resolution before the end of
the day.
* * *
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the proposed Canadian neutron facility at Chalk
River is an essential part of Canada's scientific infrastructure
for the 21st century, yet the government continues to delay its
approval month after month.
Will the minister responsible assure the House that a positive
decision will be made on the project before the end of June?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not in the position to project timeframes with
respect to a decision.
The hon. gentleman is right in identifying the importance of
this big science project. He has also raised on other occasions
the severe challenge that all governments face in dealing with
the complexity of big science decisions.
The government is proceeding to consider all the relevant
options and will make its decision as quickly as it can based
upon sound science, due diligence and fiscal responsibility.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian neutron facility is
required to give the country an advance materials testing
capability, safer materials, better foods and medicines, and
better science essential to the knowledge economy.
The Minister of Finance has spoken often about the knowledge
economy and the innovation that is needed. This project needs a
champion at the cabinet table and the Minister of Finance can be
that champion. Will the finance minister champion this facility
when it is considered by cabinet next week?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. gentleman's knowledge of cabinet agendas is
obviously a bit faulty.
In respect of the project, as the member will know from the
government's red book three platform and also from the Speech
from the Throne, it is our intention over the next 10 years to
more than double Canadian investment in research and development
to make sure that the country stays on the cutting edge of
knowledge, research and innovation, not just in Canada but in the
world. We will make the appropriate decisions to make that
investment, which is critically important to the nation.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, a group from the Quebec City region comprising, among
others, the comité de sauvegarde des chantiers Davie de Lévis and
the comité de développement économique regional Québec-Capitale,
have appealed to the federal government to help the last two
shipyards still open.
Why is the Minister of Industry not acting on the report
entitled “Breaking Through”, which proposed effective and
innovative policies instead of subsidies to support the
shipbuilding industry?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, throughout the Quebec City area,
the Economic Development Agency of Canada has intervened with a
vast economic development program to help it develop
technologically.
On the issue of shipyards, one of the first acts of the Minister
of Industry was to appoint a committee of experts in the field so
certain recommendations could be formulated.
The recommendations have been tabled, and my colleague in
industry will act on them in the best economic interests of not
only the Quebec area, but of Canada as a whole.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister's first act was to speak. He has yet to
decide and he has yet to act.
In the meantime, more and more of Canada's shipyards are
closing. There are only 100 workers currently at the Davie
yards.
Why is the government not doing something for shipbuilding?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member
is trying to run down a very serious job done by the people from
the industry.
These people tabled a report with recommendations. My colleague
is currently studying it. I simply want to say that the
government is already putting incentives in place for
shipbuilding. We will make our position on the report known very
soon.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister declared that Canada would
fight fire with fire over Brazil's aerospace industry. However,
only last week the minister responsible for wheat told grain
farmers in western Canada they had to stop growing wheat because
that subsidy war was unwinnable. Of course the Minister of
Industry claims he does not believe in subsidies because they are
not productive for the economy.
When will the Prime Minister develop a plan to end the dispute
with Brazil that does not rely on using illegal subsidies?
1455
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I tried to give an explanation yesterday that, yes, we
want to terminate that, but we have to make sure that Brazil
respects the international rules. Bombardier wants to respect
them.
I would like to say, for example, that these complaints are
coming but yet their deputy House leader, the member for
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, was quick to praise a federal loan
to Haley Industries, a subcontractor of Bombardier, located in
her riding. I quote her:
I am pleased that the government of Canada has made this
contribution to local employment...This repayable research and
development investment will enable the company to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I really wonder where the consistency is in the
government's policy. It seems that corporate welfare programs
are only available to Bombardier's customers.
What about other Canadian industries facing unfair subsidies?
What about agriculture? What about shipbuilding? What about the
steel industry? What about the jobs in those sectors that do not
get subsidized credit?
Could the Prime Minister tell us how he decides which jobs are
the most equal and therefore the best able to qualify?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member is talking about being consistent, he
should talk to his seatmate. She is the one who was praising the
government for helping somebody who was producing goods for
Bombardier to sell in competition with the Brazilians.
When I look around I think they have to work on consistency a
bit. Do you not agree there in the back?
The Speaker: I know the Prime Minister intended to
address those remarks through the Chair.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs. It concerns Canada's ratification of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is a 1993 red
book promise.
Given the importance of this convention and given that two
former ministers of foreign affairs expressed in recent years
their firm intent to ratify, when could Canadians expect the
ratification of the law of the sea to take place?
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada intends to ratify
the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The only question
remaining at this time is when the ratification will take place.
Canada is going to ratify this convention on the law of the sea
within the far broader context of the Canadian policy on offshore
fishing. What we need is an effective regime that can be applied
internationally on the high seas in order to protect the fish
populations that straddle the 200 mile limit.
That is what we want and that is what we are going to get.
* * *
[English]
SPORTS
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, synchronized swimming is a sport
involving thousands of female athletes across Canada. It was one
of the few team sports to bring home a gold medal from the 2000
Olympics.
Yet recently the junior minister for amateur sport took the
unprecedented and unwarranted step of withholding funding from
Synchro Canada in order to force the relocation of its national
training centre out of Ontario to his own city.
Why is the junior minister discriminating against these female
athletes and destroying their dream of swimming for Canada?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the
member opposite does not quite understand what she is talking
about. The hon. member's facts are not quite correct. I welcome
this opportunity to set the record straight.
In fact, Synchro Quebec appealed the decision to locate the
sports centre of excellence that was established to take place in
Etobicoke. The appeal committee recently handed down its
decision and found that in fact there was bias at that time. Now
Sports Canada is working with both Synchro Quebec and Synchro
Canada to help them with mediation through two separate—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—
Pembroke.
1500
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the junior minister for sport is
completely disregarding the timely and transparent findings of
the internal review panel set up to deal with this issue.
He has not spoken to nor met directly with the board of
Synchro Canada, with members of the national team nor with
synchro clubs across Canada. In short, he is beyond his depth
and out of sync.
Will the Prime Minister tell the junior minister for sport that
he will not be promoted in the next cabinet shuffle unless he
stops micromanaging the affairs of Synchro Canada and
discriminating against these female athletes?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me try to repeat
what I said. Before I do, I welcome the member's sudden interest
in the heritage department and in Sports Canada.
Let me say again that the matter was appealed. The appeal
decision was rendered in April. Sports Canada is now willing to
assist both Synchro Canada and Synchro Quebec to come to an
amicable resolution by two mediation processes, which have been
set up.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR CANADA
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ):Mr. Speaker, today
representatives of the Association des Gens de l'Air have shown,
with figures to back them up, that francophones are
under-represented at Air Canada.
According to their figures, it will take Air Canada 32 more
years to get to the 25% target for francophones it set itself 15
years ago. It will have taken then a total of 47 years. It
is as if a policy set in the time of Louis St-Laurent were just
getting implemented now.
What concrete action does the minister responsible for
application of the Official Languages Act intend to take to
correct this unacceptable situation, which has been going on at
Air Canada for too long?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
Air Canada is subject to the Official Languages Act. We
constantly hear complaints about Air Canada's not respecting the
Official Languages Act. Once again we have heard testimony. The
Gens de l'Air as well as the Commissioner of Official Languages
will be appearing before the committee this afternoon. We are
going to lend an attentive ear.
The Government of Canada is greatly concerned about Air Canada's
non-compliance with the Official Languages Act.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
CHIEF OF DEFENCE STAFF
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 32(2) I have the pleasure to table, in both official
languages, two copies of “An Honour to Serve”, the 2000-01
annual report of the chief of defence staff.
As members know, the chief of defence staff, General Baril, will
soon retire and, as such, this is his fourth and final annual
report.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank General Baril for
his time as chief of defence staff and commend him on the
outstanding job he has done serving his country and leading our
armed forces.
I am certain all members of the House join me in thanking him
and wishing him well in his retirement.
* * *
[Translation]
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 nine petitions.
* * *
[English]
STATUTES OF CANADA
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2) I have the honour to lay upon the table of the House, in
both official languages, proposals to correct certain anomalies,
inconsistencies and errors, and to deal with other matters of a
non-controversial and non-complicated nature in the Statutes of
Canada, and to repeal an act and certain provisions that have
expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the third
report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Pursuant to the order of reference of February 27, 2001, your
committee has considered the main estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002.
1505
[Translation]
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the third report
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
[English]
Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday April 26, your
committee has considered Bill C-24, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, and has agreed to report
it with amendment.
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Finance
regarding its order of reference of Thursday, May 10 in relation
to Bill S-16, an act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money
Laundering) Act. The committee has considered Bill S-16 and
reports the bill without amendment.
INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the first report
of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in
relation to Bill S-17, an act to amend the Patent Act. The
committee reports the bill without amendment.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the second report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science
and Technology on the main estimates 2001-02. The committee
reports the main estimates without amendment.
[Translation]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
second report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade.
[English]
Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday May 8, your
committee has considered Bill C-6, an act to amend the
International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, and has agreed to report
this important legislation protecting one of our greatest natural
resources with one amendment.
[Translation]
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the third report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), and on a motion from the member
for Calgary East, the committee considered the situation in
Afghanistan. It condemns the recent actions of religious
intolerance in that country and recommends that the government
work through the United Nations to promote and protect religious
freedom in Afghanistan.
* * *
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS ACT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-355, an act to amend the
Statutory Instruments Act (regulatory accountability).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this
private member's bill entitled, an act to amend the Statutory
Instruments Act.
The effect of the bill is that all proposed regulations made by
ministers would have to be laid before the House of Commons so
that the appropriate committee could study them, conduct
inquiries or public hearings and then report back to the House.
In effect, it would improve the accountability of the regulatory
making procedure.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
TOBACCO YOUTH PROTECTION ACT
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) moved that
Bill S-15, an act to enable and assist the Canadian tobacco
industry in attaining its objective of preventing the use of
tobacco products by young persons in Canada, be read the first
time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
1510
MAIN ESTIMATES
The Speaker: The following motion, in the name of the
hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is deemed adopted:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), consideration by the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade of
Votes 20 and 25 under Foreign Affairs and International
Trade—Canadian International Development Agency in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002, be extended
beyond May 31, 2001.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ) moved: That the second
report of the Standing Joint Committee on
Official Languages, presented in May 2001, be concurred in.
She said: Mr. Speaker, to convince parliamentarians of this
House that it is urgent to adopt the report without delay, allow
me to make a few remarks on some recommendations.
The issue studied in the report is essentially that of the
broadcasting and availability of debates and proceedings of
parliament in both official languages.
In its analysis, the committee found, and I quote:
The sixth and seventh recommendations of the report are of
particular interest to me. They relate to the closed captioning
in French of Oral Question Period and the closed captioning in
both official languages of Senate committee proceedings, when
they are broadcast.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in sign language as follows:]
Captioning is important. By now my interest for captioning and
for people who are deaf or hearing impaired is known. I take this
opportunity to tell them that they have my support and to salute
them.
In this special Better Hearing Month, it is good to remind
ourselves that 10% of the population is deaf or hearing impaired.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, for one minute, you did
not understand anything. Imagine that for a whole life.
Personally I find it harrowing. That is why my struggle for
captioning remains so actual and crucial.
As I was saying in LSQ, May is Better Hearing Month. I take this
opportunity to remind the House that over three million Canadians
live with a hearing problem, 750,000 of them in Quebec alone.
This problem now affects one in ten individuals. Deafness is the
handicap that affects the largest number of people and, what is
more, it is invisible. We cannot remain unconcerned about that
alarming fact.
More than ever we must become aware of this fact and take
concrete actions we must not only express pious hopes but take concrete
legislative actions.
Need I remind the House that television plays an essential role
in the lives of a very large number of deaf and hearing impaired
people, and for good reason: because some of them have no other
means of communication not everyone can have a computer and
access to Internet.
To deny them access to this source of information and
entertainment could lead to isolation, not to mention all the
various safety aspects.
Since these persons cannot hear the radio, television remains
the only media of information in real time for them. Just think
about weather warnings or disasters. Without captioning, these
people will have no idea about what is going on. To learn about
the events through the newspapers the next day would be too late
in many instances and that could have serious consequences on
their safety.
In Quebec, the deaf or the hearing impaired remember quite well
the ice storm because they had no access whatsoever to real time
information.
These are but a few examples to illustrate the very complex
difference between those who are fortunate enough to hear
properly and those who are not. I remain optimistic however and
my goal is to obtain 100% captioning for television programs.
Overall, I find the report of the Standing Joint Committee on
Official Languages to be a good start.
I am very happy to see that the motion on captioning that I
tabled in 1999, and which received unanimous consent of the
House, is finally echoed within parliamentary committees. The
analysis of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages
and its recommendations for mandatory captioning of all debates
in the House are a clear example of that.
However, it is only a start, only one tool among others to truly
facilitate the integration of deaf or hearing impaired persons
into our society.
I was also pleased to hear the last Speech from the Throne
because the federal government promised to increase its support
for the CBC/SRC in order to help that corporation better play its
role as public broadcaster serving all Canadians.
1515
That is the end of the good news because, despite this fine
inclusive speech, I still wonder about the priority given to
those three million people with a hearing disability.
I am also concerned about the deaf and hearing impaired
francophones who have access to a meagre 38% of the French
network's programming of Radio-Canada, while the figure is 90%
for the English network. These statistics are disturbing, to say
the least.
It is totally inconceivable that, in a country that brags about
respecting the two official languages, French closed captioning
lags so far behind closed captioned programming provided in
English.
I believe there is only one way to solve this sensitive issue of
access to communications for those three million people:
legislation to require broadcasters to provide closed captioning
for their video programming in both official languages and to
give the same rights to hearing impaired people. The federal
government has full leeway to legislate quickly on this.
I remind the House that I introduced a bill, Bill C-306, which
would amend the Broadcasting Act to require every broadcaster to
provide closed captioning for its video programming.
Unfortunately, my bill is still not on the House's priority list.
Since this is hearing and speech month, I challenge the
government to show its true intentions regarding the priority it
intends to give to deaf and hearing impaired people. To that end,
I offer the government the opportunity to take over my bill so
that members of parliament can debate it as quickly as possible.
For those very legitimate reasons, and I am sure members will
agree, I ask unanimous consent of the House so that the second
report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages be
concurred in now. In conclusion, I hope that the federal
government will understand that closed captioning allows deaf and
hearing impaired people to read what we hear.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
BILL S-15
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Moments ago a bill was introduced, Bill S-15. I take this
occasion to indicate to the House that it is my belief that the
bill cannot proceed to the next reading because it is out of
order.
[Translation]
Bill S-15, which was just introduced in the House, creates an
independent foundation to provide funding for programs to prevent
the use of tobacco products by young people. It is obviously a
very laudable initiative.
The funds would come from a tax on tobacco products. The senator
who introduced the bill expects that such a tax will bring in
$360 million each year to fund the foundation.
As members know, section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867,
states:
Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for
imposing any Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of
Commons.
Beauchesne's states:
A Ways and Means motion is a necessary preliminary to the
imposition of a new tax, the continuation of an expiring tax, an
increase in the rate of an existing tax, or an extension of the
incidence of a tax so as to include persons not already payers.
Whether we are talking about imposing a new tax, continuing an
expiring tax, increasing a tax or extending the incidence of a
tax, a ways and means motion is necessary. Beauchesne's also
states:
1520
[English]
Bill S-15 is essentially the same as a bill tabled in the first
session of the 36th parliament, Bill S-13. The principal
differences between Bill S-13 and Bill S-15 are a detailed
preamble and the addition of part III which sets out what are
claimed to be the bill's benefits to the industry.
However the new bill is the same in purpose and operation as was
Bill S-13. The main purpose of Bill S-15 remains: to prevent the
use of tobacco products by young people. Its mechanics to
implement that purpose are completely identical. I therefore
suggest that the same treatment be reserved for this bill as for
the prior one. The taxation powers of Bill S-15 of $360 million
per year are increased fivefold over Bill S-13, which would have
raised $70 million annually.
Mr. Speaker, your predecessor, Speaker Parent, concluded that
Bill S-13 constituted a tax bill and as such constitutionally and
procedurally could be initiated only in the House of Commons and
only after the House had concurred in a ways and means motion
tabled by a minister of the crown. The bill was therefore ruled
not to be properly before the House.
I submit that the ruling on Bill S-13 applies to Bill S-15. As
I have indicated, the two bills are in essence the same in
purpose and operation. Like Bill S-13, Bill S-15 must be
considered a taxation measure which should have been initiated
and could only be initiated in the House and not the Senate after
concurrence in a ways and means motion proposed by a minister of
the crown.
The government and the House recently took action to address
tobacco use, and in particular smoking by young Canadians, by
passing Bill C-26, the tobacco tax amendment bill. I will quote
a speech made in the other place by Senator John Bryden who noted
that Bill C-26 and Bill S-15 both claim to reduce tobacco
consumption to meet national health objectives. Senator Bryden
said:
I have much difficulty making the difference between Bill S-15,
which will charge $1.75 per carton, and the bill that was
introduced from the other place today, which will charge $2 per
carton. One is called an excise tax; the other one is called a
levy.
Bill C-26 was introduced in the House after concurrence in a
ways and means motion which was introduced by a minister of the
crown.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that although Bill S-15 has the
laudable objective of reducing smoking by young Canadians, it is
a taxation measure. As such it should have been initiated and
can only be initiated in the House of Commons after concurrence
in a ways and means motion which furthermore can only be proposed
by a minister of the crown. The House did almost the same thing
by introducing Bill C-26 which was preceded by a motion of ways
and means that was concurred in prior to the bill's introduction.
I therefore submit that the bill cannot be introduced in the
House. Now that the member has gone through the process of
introducing it, it is not properly before the House, to use the
language your predecessor used, Mr. Speaker. Therefore I ask the
Chair to rule that the bill is out of order and not properly
before the House.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask for
your indulgence. As official opposition we did not have notice
that the bill would be introduced and discussed today. I would
like some time to prepare an answer to what we have heard from
the government House leader so that we may represent another
point of view on the issue before you decide whether or not the
bill is in order.
The Speaker: I will keep the member's comments in mind
but there are other members who would like to make an
intervention. I am prepared to hear them at this time.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
just want to remind the Chair that, notwithstanding the ruling it
will make concerning the admissibility of the bill, the tobacco
industry is in favour of this bill, and so are the health groups
fighting against smoking.
In our mind, this is not a tax. We went through the same thing
with the video industry, where a levy was imposed.
1525
In common case law, a levy is a measure applying only to a
specific industry and aiming at a very specific goal for the same
industry.
The levy mentioned in the bill would be imposed on the tobacco
industry. The industry wants this levy. Organizations trying to
dissuade people from smoking agree with such a levy. Mr. Speaker,
we respectfully submit that this is not a tax, but rather a
voluntary levy. Therefore, the bill is in order.
The best thing we can do as parliamentarians is to refer the
bill to committee and allow it to go through the various stages
and then come back to the House so we can have a debate over the
substance of the bill.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
will be brief.
First, I am not as knowledgeable as you are, Mr. Speaker, and I
would like to ask you a question. At what point can the Chair
decide that a bill is in order?
When the bill was introduced earlier during routine proceedings,
nobody rose. We saw the very professional and credible look of
the Speaker. He looked to see if the government House leader
would rise then to debate the admissibility of the bill before
its introduction.
The government House leader did not rise at that time. He was
busy, and I understand that. He rose a few moments ago, as it is
his prerogative to rise at any time on a point of order.
Here is my question for the Chair: since the bill has already
been introduced, at what point can the Chair decide to refuse or
accept a bill?
I am not as knowledgeable as you are with regard to procedural
matters, but I would say that it should be before the
introduction of the bill. It seems that the bill has gone through
an important step and, with all due respect, I would like the
Chair to rule on that issue.
Second, my colleague, the House leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party, the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, is very much interested in
everything that goes on in the House with regard to procedure,
just like you are. We agree with the House leader of the official
opposition and would ask the following of the Chair. We would
like to have a little more time to prepare our response to
the point of order raised by the government House leader.
This is an important bill. My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois
mentioned that there is practically unanimous support for Bill
S-15. Yet, we are caught up in procedural wrangling between the
two Houses. We would like to have time to react, knowing full
well that the majority of members in this House have received
dozens and hundreds of letters from people from their ridings
asking them to support Bill S-15.
A decision has to be made which, we believe, has a historical
value with regard to parliamentary rules, that is, whether or not
the bill is in order.
With all due respect, I am asking the Chair to give us a little
more time, at least 24 hours, to come up with the arguments
that could help it make an informed decision for both Houses.
The Speaker: I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member
for Richmond—Arthabaska. I can tell the House that the
admissibility of a bill is an issue that can always be addressed
in the House. A member can challenge the admissibility of a bill
at any time before third reading.
I think the government House leader is right to raise the issue
at this time. I have already indicated to the official opposition
House leader that I will hear more on this later on.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, based on your comments I would like to put on record
some of our thoughts with respect to the point of order raised by
the government House leader. I am certainly prepared to provide
serious input into the matter.
1530
I am pleased to participate in what I consider to be a very
serious discussion on whether Bill S-15 is in order. The
government House leader has suggested that you, Mr. Speaker,
should not allow Bill S-15 to proceed further because it is, in
his view, and I assume the government's view, in all important
aspects, a public tax measure. As such, he has argued that it
should not be allowed in the House because it originates in the
Senate and is missing the required warrant.
Members who spoke before me have put forward some compelling
arguments why first reading of Bill S-15 would be in order
without a royal recommendation.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall, and the government House leader
referenced this in his remarks, that a similar debate arose in
parliament on November 18, 1998, with respect to Bill S-13 which
was the forerunner to Bill S-15. At that time I suggested we
were dealing with a grey area in terms of procedures and
constitutional and legal issues around a bill of this nature
coming from the Senate.
Speaker Parent at that time ruled on the point of order on
December 2, 1998 and stated:
The question that I must consider in relation to Bill S-13, that
is whether or not the charge imposed by the bill is a tax,
relates to the procedural rules and practices of this House as
well as to the time honoured privilege of this House in respect
of taxation measures.
Speaker Parent went on to give a very lengthy elaboration of the
issues involved and made a very definitive conclusion indicating
that he believed the point of order was in line and would be
accepted. He said very clearly that he felt the bill included a
tax measure that, because of its origins in the Senate and
without royal recommendation, was not allowed for debate in the
House.
Speaker Parent went on to state:
I am forced to conclude that the charge imposed by Bill S-13 is
directed not toward any benefit to the tobacco industry but to a
matter of public policy, that is, the health of young Canadians,
a laudable purpose without doubt.
Simply put, any bill imposing a tax must originate in the House
of Commons and must be preceded by a ways and means motion. Since
Bill S-13 proposes a tax, did not originate in the House of
Commons and thus was not preceded by a ways and means motion, I
therefore find that it is not properly before the House.
I want to say this afternoon that since Speaker Parent's ruling
and since the time that we discussed Bill S-13, or at least
discussed whether or not it should be permitted for debate in the
Chamber, the bill has been significantly redrafted. There are
some very significant changes to Bill S-13 as now outlined in
Bill S-15.
The first change is that a detailed preamble has been added to
the bill that sets out the facts that define the problem of youth
smoking.
The second change is that an entirely new part has been added to
the bill which lists the number of benefits to the tobacco
industry. The sponsor of the bill has indicated that one of the
most important benefits is that the tobacco industry would be
seen to be involved in an initiative dealing with the problem of
smoking.
Mr. Speaker, I would argue before you today that given those
changes we are back to dealing with a grey area in our House
procedures and that you are now faced with a very new challenge
in ruling on this point of order.
1535
I will try to make the case that Bill S-15 ought to be pursued
in the Chamber and that the House of Commons needs to debate the
merits of this legislative initiative.
I base this argumentation on several factors. First, I believe
that Bill S-15 is a serious attempt to address a critical problem
in our society today, that being the high incidence of smoking,
particularly among young people. The sponsors of the bill have
been vigilant in their pursuit of changes in this regard and in
their attempts to provide a reasoned public policy response
dealing with a serious problem.
Mr. Speaker, if your rulings were based simply on dogged
determination then you would have no problem ruling on this one
in a flash, but obviously such argumentation does not factor in.
What is relevant though is whether Bill S-15 is in the public
interest, whether or not it is a public bill.
Bill S-15, as has been said, seeks to create a public agency and
proposes collecting dollars from rich tobacco companies to spend
it on community measures which are supported by a host of public
agencies.
Evidence of the bill being in the public interest has been
brought forward to all of us in the House by the number of
letters, faxes and phone calls that we have received from
individuals and organizations in our own constituencies and from
across Canada. I have personally received dozens of letters and
faxes from constituents and other Canadians in support of this
initiative.
This is not to say that from a procedural point of view this
initiative is necessarily a public bill. If one were debating
the merits of the bill, which obviously we are not doing today
and not able to do according to the rules of the House, we would
expect to hear concerns from members in my caucus about the
perception that the bill caters to the needs of the tobacco
industry. We would also point to evidence that the bill is in
the industry's interest based upon the amount of money and energy
being spent by tobacco companies to support the legislation. We
would also talk about the campaigns against youth smoking being
run by tobacco companies in the United States and Europe which
are very similar to those that Bill S-15 proposes to fund.
The point of saying this is not to debate the merits of the bill
but to highlight a question that you, Mr. Speaker, must address,
and that is whether this is an industry bill that benefits the
public or whether it is a public bill that benefits the industry
itself. Whether or not we like the changes in the bill, the fact
is that you are left with the fundamental question about the
nature of the bill. As it has been changed from Bill S-13 to
Bill S-15, it can now be argued that the financial implications
of the bill constitute a levy and not a tax.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that your task is to look at the
very fundamental question of whether the bill is in the public
interest. Your task is to look at whether the bill is a public
bill benefiting not only the industry but other broader
objectives in our society today or whether it is an industry bill
benefiting the citizens of the country and being done in the
interest of good public policy.
Speaker Parent's ruling in December 1998 clearly stated that
Bill S-13, at that time, was dealing with a public policy matter
and that the money being generated through the provisions offered
in the bill constituted a tax.
1540
The bill has now been fundamentally changed. It is a bill that
is much more clear about benefits to the tobacco industry. We
are talking more specifically about a levy as opposed to a tax. I
think that is something you, Mr. Speaker, must seriously
consider.
Our party certainly has major concerns about any attempt to
cater to the tobacco industry and to support it in its efforts to
win public support. However, the real question at hand is
whether or not this initiative should be debated in the House and
on what basis should a bill from the Senate be allowed into this
Chamber.
I would be remiss if I did not point out in my argumentation
that the government seems to want it both ways when it comes to
using the Senate in terms of the whole legislative process. As I
said in November 1998, and I am now more firm in my beliefs than
ever in this regard, it is curious that the government, in rising
on this point of order, actually expressed concerns about the
democratic right of the elected House of Commons versus the
rights of the unelected Senate. Certainly it is causing us some
concern because we know that this is a government that has
resurrected the undemocratic practice of routinely introducing
government bills in the Senate before doing so in the House,
something which the New Democratic Party has vigorously
protested.
Since we are dealing with a new bill that has changed
substantially from Bill S-13, the ruling by former Speaker Parent
may no longer apply to the situation at hand and therefore you,
Mr. Speaker, must revisit this situation and look for precedence
in order to make a determination based on these new factors.
I would suggest that we are again in a very grey area in terms
of whether the bill is eligible for debate in the House. On that
basis and without quoting, I would refer you to some of the
references I made in the House in November 1998. I cited
references in Erskine May, 21st edition, at page 716 and
Beauchesne's at page 97, citation 324. Further, I made reference
to Bourinot's two principles outlined on page 491 and other
citations which can be found in my speech at that time.
It would be in the interest of the House and of all Canadians
that we have a debate on the ideas being proposed in Bill S-15.
We are all concerned about smoking and how our young people are
being addicted to cigarettes at an early age. We want to do
everything in our power to correct that situation. We need to
look at the circumstances surrounding Bill S-15 and the history
of tobacco legislation. We must consider the public interest and
the health of children in these deliberations. Mr. Speaker, I
recommend this position to you.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to comment on Bill S-15, which is a redraft of Bill
S-13 that was ruled out of order by your predecessor. Bill S-13
was followed by Bill S-20, which was quite similar to Bill S-15
but died on the order paper before the election.
Bill S-15 would incorporate a foundation that will be working
at arm's length from the government, one that will be funded by
money that will not come from the government and not go into the
consolidated fund.
On the face of it and under its terms, the bill is in the
interest of the industry that is making the commitment to ensure
that people who take up smoking are of legal age.
The third goal of this bill is to provide the foundation with
$360 million to carry out its activities.
1545
[English]
Is it a tax or is it a levy? A tax bill originates only in the
House of Commons and is preceded by a ways and means motion. Only
a minister can move such a motion. We agree with the House
leader on this.
Levies, being much rarer, are recognized by the U.K., by
Australia and by ourselves. In Canada the levy must satisfy two
conditions: it must be imposed on the industry involved and it
must serve a beneficial industry purpose. In the British
practice there is one additional condition, that is, the levy
must not form part of the government revenue. Bill S-15 not only
meets the two Canadian conditions, that a levy is imposed on the
industry and that it serves a beneficial purpose to the industry,
but it even meets the third criteria, a U.K. one, that the
revenues will not form part of the consolidated revenues of the
government.
There are many previous bills in our own history that have been
adopted without a ways and means motion. In the copyright
amendment act of 1997, which your predecessor, Mr. Speaker,
referred to in his judgment and which was a levy on blank tapes
in favour of performers and recording artists, there was no ways
and means motion and it was seen as a levy. Again, in the Canada
Shipping Act of 1987 there was no ways and means motion. It was
a levy against shipowners to deal with oil spills caused by
tankers and other ships. As well, in regard to the Canada
Petroleum Resources Act in 1985 there was no ways and means
motion. There, owners would pay into an environmental studies
research fund. In the British house, Erskine May cites 13
precedents of levies for industry purposes between 1917 and 1994
that did not require ways and means resolutions.
The previous ruling said it could not be a levy for an industry
purpose because it would reduce industries' future markets. I
refer to the House leader who said Bill S-15 is exactly the same
as Bill S-13 except that a preamble has been added in part III.
Surely that is a significant addition. The preamble in part III
is not that same as that in Bill S-13. The preamble quite
clearly sets out the facts defining the problem of youth smoking
and the publicly stated objective of the tobacco industry to stop
youth smoking because it is not in its favour to promote illegal
smoking by people not entitled to do it. There is an entirely
new part added to Bill S-15, which lists the benefits to the
tobacco industry.
This is a procedural question which we must decide. We must
decide whether the bill on its face it is a tax or a levy for
industry purposes. The bill expressly provides that the
foundation is established for the industry and that the purpose
of the bill is to meet the industry's objective. Inquiring
beyond the face of the bill and questioning its express
provisions goes well beyond the realm of procedure and enters
into the area of law. I respectfully suggest that the Speaker is
exceeding his proper jurisdiction if he addresses legal questions
in the substance of the bill.
The coincidental fact that youth smoking reduction also happens
to be a public policy objective in no way interferes with the
procedural acceptability of the bill. There is nothing in the
precedents, Canadian or U.K., that prevents the basic industry
purpose from coinciding with a public policy objective. As a
procedural matter, the Speaker's responsibility is limited to
determining whether or not the bill meets the two criteria set in
Canada for a levy as outlined by authorities such as Erskine May.
I suggest that in arriving at this determination we should not go
beyond the express provisions of the bill, leaving the substance
of the bill for the House itself to decide.
1550
Not all of the tobacco industry is in favour of the bill, but
80% of it is, and the bill meets the criteria of a levy. In the
case of the copyright law where blank tapes were instituted
through a levy that went to artists and recording artists, it was
also opposed by a lot of the recording media associations.
The minimum requirement in the criteria is that the levy must
provide a benefit to an industry. There are no provisions or
precedents that beneficiaries must be one specified group or
another. The fund is not used to finance activities except
activities that are strictly within the purview of the bill
itself.
Before now, there were flaws. There was an objection as to
where the funds would go if tomorrow the foundation ceased to
exist. Would they have to go back to the consolidated revenue
fund? So another clause, subclause 33(3), has been added, which
states clearly that in the case of the foundation ceasing to
exist the funds will be returned to the council for the tobacco
industry, therefore the tobacco industry itself.
There has also been the argument that if we produce the bill in
the House of Commons then it would open the floodgates to such
bills. I would point out that since 1917 British practice has
produced only 13 such bills involving levies.
It was interesting when, in the first instance of Bill S-13,
when Bill S-20 was crafted, Senator Kenny, who was the sponsor of
the bill, asked me to consult with the authorities of the House.
I went to see the clerk of the House, then Mr. Marleau. Mr.
Marleau referred me to the senior legal officer, Mr. Walsh. Mr.
Walsh commissioned through the funds of the House of Commons a
legal opinion from Mr. Michael Clegg.
The legal opinion from Mr. Michael Clegg is clear. He says that
in his opinion it is not a tax but a levy. He also says that on
the face of the bill and its express conditions we have to give
the benefit of the doubt to the bill being a levy. This opinion
was confirmed by several experts: Mr. David Gussow, a long
serving procedural adviser to the House of Commons itself; Mr.
Mark Siegel, a tax specialist counsel at Gowling in Ottawa; Mr.
Joseph Magnet, a constitutional expert from the faculty of law of
the University of Ottawa; and Mr. Raymond Du Plessis, Q.C.
It is interesting to hear what Mr. Michael Clegg said:
It is one of the basic canons of the construction of statutes
that where there are clear and direct words in a statute, they
should be interpreted literally unless they result in absurdity,
illegality or impossibility.
That is not the case here.
He says further:
Where there are two possible approaches to the interpretation of
a bill, it should be given the meaning that follows its literal
and specific provisions.
May I submit that the argument here should not be the objective
or part of the process or to surmise as to the moral or ethical
reasons for the tobacco industry to set this up, but really it
should be whether or not the bill institutes through its wording
a levy.
I should explain my own position. I am not a defender of the
tobacco industry, very far from it. My first act as environment
minister of Quebec was to produce a bill for the protection of
non-smokers. It was the first such bill in Canada.
However, what I think we need here is the decision of a right to
debate this bill here and not use some sort of obtuse procedural
excuse not to debate it here. Is a foundation created by an
industry under suspicion because it carries out objectives that
are completely different from those of the industry itself?
1555
I could give the examples of the Rockefeller Foundation, which
was built on big oil, or the Ford Foundation, which was built on
car revenues. These foundations create all kinds of programs
that are beneficial to others.
What would happen, for instance, if a big TV empire like Sony
created a foundation separate from itself through levies, whereby
it would provide education for banning TV addiction in young
people? Would that be illegal or unfounded? It is perfectly
acceptable that it would be so, that an industry could create a
foundation that would serve a purpose which on the face of it
might seem contradictory.
We have done a lot of research on this issue. Our research and
the five or six legal opinions by leading experts show clearly
that the bill represents a levy and not a tax, based on the
wording of it. This is what we must be seized with rather than
the substance of it or the moral or ethical considerations of why
the foundation is being created. On the face of it we must
accept this bill as debatable, as imposing a levy, and therefore
not meeting the criteria for a ways and means motion.
We have put a lot of research into this. I would like to offer
this book to you, Mr. Speaker, if you wish to accept it, so that
you can find out what our case is built upon. I believe that
upon reading it you will come to the conclusion that we are
imposing a levy for an industry purpose and that the bill does
not need a ways and means motion. It should be debatable in the
House. I hope we can proceed to second reading stage and a
debate in the House.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, very
briefly I will attempt to submit for your consideration a few
thoughts in support of the admissibility of Bill S-15 and which
would in essence answer two questions.
The first question is this: is the bill a tax? I submit to
you, Mr. Speaker, that Bill S-15 does not require royal
recommendation because it does not appropriate public money. Bill
S-15 does not appropriate public funds, there is no authorization
of any kind for the expenditure of money from the consolidated
revenue fund, and all moneys are spent by the proposed
foundation. Moneys are raised through a levy imposed on the
tobacco industry and, I understand, through gifts and grants.
Second, the moneys are collected by the proposed foundation and
placed in its own account and distributed by the foundation
alone. There is no government involvement in the process.
Third, specific clauses of the bill expressly state that the
foundation is not an agent of the government and that its funds
are not public funds.
Fourth, on dissolution any surplus of funds is returned to the
tobacco industry as identified in subclause 33(3), as was
indicated earlier by my colleague.
Fifth, even the annual audits of the foundation's accounts by
the Auditor General of Canada must be paid for by the foundation
itself. The money does not come from the consolidated revenue
funds.
The second question that arises in this debate is whether the
bill is the same as Bill S-20. As other colleagues have already
identified, the answer is in the negative. First, there is a
comprehensive preamble that has been added to this bill. Second,
there is a refinement to the purpose clause, namely clause 3.
Finally, there is the addition of part III, namely clause 34,
which spells out the industry benefits.
1600
Finally, it is worth quoting the opinion expressed by Professor
Magnet of the Law Faculty of the University of Ottawa, which has
already been mentioned very briefly. I will quote from his
letter to Mark Audcent, the law clerk in the other chamber. In a
16 page long overview, he concluded:
This means that the levy in the Draft Bill is not a tax in the
constitutional sense; it is a regulatory charge adhesive to a
regulatory scheme that provides benefits to the industry by
ameliorating a problem that the industry caused, for which it is
blamed by the public and which it wishes to address. Because the
levy, in my opinion, is a “regulatory charge” and not a “tax”
in the constitutional sense, it is not subject to the discipline
of sections 53 and 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as
interpreted by the courts.
In the result, in my opinion, there is no constitutional
impediment to the introduction of the Draft Bill to Parliament
first in the Senate Chamber.
I submit these observations, Mr. Speaker, for your
consideration, and I thank you for your attention.
The Speaker: We seem to be getting a bit repetitious in
the arguments on this point, so I am prepared to hear a bit more.
However, I urge hon. members who want to make interventions to
deal with some new point that we have not heard raised in the
submissions by others. The Chair does not need to hear umpteen
submissions on the same point.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I take good note of your comments to the effect that we
should not repeat arguments that have already been presented in
the House.
I am greatly comforted by the remarks of the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Louis and I fully support what he proposed.
I will simply touch very briefly on two issues. First, is this a
tax or a levy? Dictionaries clearly define the word “tax” as “a
contribution to the revenues of the government that is compulsory
for taxpayers, goods or businesses”.
The levy mentioned in Bill S-15 does not in any way contribute
to government revenues. It comes from the tobacco industry and it
is paid to the foundation without ever being part of the
treasury, even if the foundation were to be disbanded. At that
point, the balance would be transferred to the Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers Council.
My second point is whether or not this is a matter of law. Such
issues usually come under the jurisdiction of the House of
Commons. As we know, according to our tradition and rules, the
Speaker of the House does not rule on constitutional or legal
issues.
If we listen to the debates on the point of order raised by the
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, we begin to see
that this may be a legal issue. Therefore, I urge the Chair to
simply look at the Canadian precedents on the issue of levies, at
the two conditions that are proposed and see if this bill does
meet these two criteria. If so, I call on the Chair to deem the
bill in order, thus allowing the debate to continue in the House.
[English]
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am responding to the point of order made by the
government House leader earlier today.
It seems that he is looking for ways or mechanisms to weasel his
way around routine proceedings. He seems rather fond of that. He
is looking to procedurally disable his own caucus members and
their bills.
We heard from the members for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine,
Davenport, Lac-Saint-Louis and Peterborough.
1605
I would like to add that this was done without notice. It is
something that our opposition House leader mentioned and I think
therefore merits 24 hours of notice.
Finally I would like to add that the government House leader
seems to enjoy following the rules when it is convenient for him.
Yesterday he asked for unanimous consent and I denied it.
The Speaker: This is a procedural argument that we are
hearing, not one on personalities or arguments about the conduct
of members or the reasons why they raised the points.
If the hon. member has some point to make in respect of the
admissibility of this bill, I would like to hear it. In fact I
will not hear questions regarding the conduct of other members
from him on the point of order we are now discussing. I want to
hear about the admissibility of the bill. If he has a point on
that I will hear him. Otherwise we will move on.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I will just wrap up by
saying that I think some of the government House leader's actions
with regard to procedures over the last few days have called into
question not only my judgment of his pronouncements on these
things but also the judgment of his own fellow caucus members.
The Speaker: I have indicated that I will hear
submissions from two other hon. members on this point tomorrow,
that is, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and
the House leader of the official opposition. That should
conclude the submissions on the point. The Chair will take the
matter under advisement and get back to the House in due course.
* * *
PETITIONS
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
presenting a petition endorsed by over 200 residents of Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, Nain, Davis Inlet, Makkovik, Sheshatshiu, North
West River, Mud Lake, Paradise River, Rigolet, Churchill Falls
and Cartwright, all in my riding of Labrador.
The petitioners call on parliament to prohibit corporal
punishment of children by repealing section 43 of the Criminal
Code of Canada.
I am pleased to bring their concerns and my support to this
House on their behalf.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have three pages of petitions from people who are
rather concerned about some aspects of coercion. Nurses,
pharmacists, physicians, students and health care workers are
being coerced into participating in practices they consider to be
against their ethical or moral standards or religious beliefs.
These petitioners call upon the government to ensure that these
people are not dictated to, that they have freedom of conscience,
that they are not discriminated against and that they not be
asked to do anything they do not feel meets with their beliefs.
I would like to submit this on behalf of all those who do not
wish to experience discrimination for their own ethical standards
and beliefs.
LABELLING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to be able to present several petitions
signed by citizens both in my constituency and other parts of
Canada pertaining to an issue I have raised previously in the
House, for which I had support of members, and that is warning labels
on all alcohol beverage containers and the problem of fetal
alcohol syndrome.
The petitioners are very supportive of action in this regard.
They point out that consumption of alcoholic beverages causes
health problems. They are concerned about fetal alcohol syndrome
and other related birth defects which they believe are
preventable by avoiding alcohol during pregnancy.
They call upon the House to mandate the labelling of all alcohol
products to warn pregnant women and other persons of certain
dangers associated with the consumption of alcoholic beverages.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 36 and 38.
.[Text]
Question No. 36—Mr. John Williams:
With regard to the child tax benefit calculated by the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency and its predecessor Revenue Canada for
each of the tax years from 1994 to 1998 inclusive: (a) how
many taxpayer files were reassessed because the child tax benefit
was originally calculated using the income of one spouse instead
of both spouses; (b) what is the total dollar amount that was
reassessed because the child tax benefit was originally
calculated using the income of one spouse instead of both
spouses; (c) how many taxpayer files cannot be reassessed even
though the child tax benefit was calculated by the Canada Customs
and Revenue Agency/Revenue Canada using the income of one spouse
instead of both spouses because the reassessment was statute
barred having been over three years since the original
assessment; and (d) what is the total dollar amount that
should have been reassessed but cannot be reassessed even though
the child tax benefit was calculated by the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency/Revenue Canada using the income of one spouse
instead of both spouses because the reassessment was statute
barred having been over three years since the original
assessment?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec, Lib.)): The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency,
formerly the Department of National Revenue, does not record the
income tax data related to the Canada child tax benefits in ways
that would provide the information requested. Presently, the
agency does not have an automated system or mechanism that will
track the number of changes made or their dollar value for
specific adjustments such as the recognition of spousal income.
This is only one of several reasons for an adjustment. Other
reasons include the addition of a newborn child or custody change
and advice that a child has left home. In order to identify the
implications of any specific reason for change, it would be
necessary to manually review the details for any change in the
three million monthly payments to families.
Question No. 38—Mr. Howard Hilstrom:
With respect to the agreement reached during the Uruguay round
of international trade negotiations for a single tariff rate
quota of 20,412 tonnes of cheese imports into Canada, tariff
heading 0406, what are the reasons the government has allowed,
through supplemental import licences since 1995, imports of dairy
product, such as breaded cheese sticks and cheese waste, over and
above the limits previously agreed upon?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Cheese sticks are produced by coating cheddar and/or
mozzarella cheeses with either batter or bread crumbs. The
overall finished product contains less than 50% dairy product and
is primarily used in the food service industry served as
appetizers or finger foods. For over 20 years Canada and the U.S.
have had bilateral trade in this product. After the 1995
implementation of the WTO agreement, Canada customs ruled that
battered cheese sticks should be classified under the same tariff
item as cheese and would therefore have been captured by the
cheese tariff rate quota (TRQ). As these products had not
previously been subject to the cheese quota, and as the U.S.
continued to allow imports from Canada, Canada continued imports
through the issuance of supplemental permits. Supplemental
permits for imports of cheese sticks containing less than 50%
cheese are issued on request. Without these permits a duty of 245%
would apply. In October 1999, the U.S. customs service notified
a Canadian exporter of breaded cheese sticks that the product was
being reclassified and would be subject to the U.S. cheese quota.
We have been pressing the United States to restore access for
Canadian exports, given the longstanding reciprocal treatment for
imports of this product. We have made it clear to the U.S. that
its action has necessitated Canada reviewing its current policy
of issuing supplemental permits for cheese sticks.
Waste cheese is used in animal feed, mink feed. Cheese waste is
an important ingredient as it is high in protein, which is
required to produce top quality mink pelt. The product is low
valued and not regularly available from domestic sources. All
customs documentation for this product is labelled “Cheese scrap
and mink feed” and not fit for human consumption. Sources of
Canadian waste cheese for use in mink feed have not been located.
The issuance of supplementary import permits for breaded cheese
sticks and waste cheese does not undermine the control and
enforcement of Canada's tariff rate quota for cheese imports.
These supplementary imports represent approximately 0.5% of the
cheese production in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1610
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-11, an act
respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee
protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger,
as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: There are 12 motions to amend on the notice
paper with respect to report stage of Bill C-11.
[English]
Motion No. 11 is the same as an amendment presented and
negatived in committee. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order
76.1(5), it has not been selected.
The Chair has considered and reviewed all the other amendments
and finds them to be in order and accordingly they will be
grouped for debate as follows.
Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1 to 4.
[Translation]
Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 5 to 8.
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
[English]
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 4 to the House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) moved:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 3, be amended by
replacing lines 1 to 7 on page 3 with the following:
“(i) to promote international justice and security by
fostering respect for human rights and by denying access to
Canadian territory to persons who are criminals or security
risks; and”
(j) to work in cooperation with the provinces to secure
better recognition of the foreign credentials of permanent
residents and their more rapid integration into society.”
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 5, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 4
on page 5.
That Bill C-11, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 11 on
page 11 with the following:
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) moved:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 30, be amended
(a) by replacing, in the French version, line 7 on page 15
with the following:
“30. (1) L'étranger ne peut exercer un emploi”
(b) by replacing, in the French version, line 14 on page 15
with the following:
“exercer un emploi ou à y”
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise to debate Bill
C-11 at the report stage. Let me begin by complimenting the
members of the committee for doing a great job during the public
hearings. We heard from over 150 witnesses. We travelled from
Vancouver to Montreal and received excellent presentations from a
very broad spectrum of witnesses.
When we came back to the House and the committee met, we spent
three long days going over the amendments. I must say that it
was an atmosphere of co-operation on all sides of the House.
Government members as well as opposition members worked on
this bill. That is about the amount of positive input that I
will make today.
Unfortunately the good work of the committee through the hearing
process is not reflected in the bill.
It is so unfortunate that House committees spend so much time
and effort on the road at the expense of taxpayers and then find
that other than a few cosmetic changes to the bill, the bill has
basically remained intact.
I must say at this point that these are the kinds of public
responses that we received from the 150 plus witnesses who
represented various organizations throughout the country.
Witnesses stated that they felt the language of the bill placed
undue emphasis on enforcement and criminality, as opposed to
language that highlights the waffly nature of Canada's
immigration and refugee program. That is very true.
The irony is in the amendment put forth in this first group of
amendments. The minister wants to amend clause 3 by replacing
lines 1 to 7 with:
(i) to promote international justice and security by fostering
respect for human rights and by denying access to Canadian
territory to persons who are criminals or security risks; and
1615
We certainly agree with that. In fact we know that is what
needs to be done. The minister could do the same thing without
the legislation. She could do it by putting more people in the
field and putting in a good front end screening vehicle so that
we keep out criminals.
The minister always talks about closing the back door. Maybe
the government needs to close the front door a little so that we
let in people who we think will become positive contributors to
the country. The irony is that the system creates its own
problems.
This is a good time to reflect on the Sklarzyk case that
happened during the past couple of weeks. The Sklarzyk family
had its visitor visa extended three times. That makes absolutely
no sense. If Canada did not want the family here in the first
place back in 1994, it makes sense that the family should have
been told to leave and go home.
Why did the government extend the visa? At that time two of the
children had been born in Poland. By extending the visitor visa
three times the government was extending a sign of welcome. It
makes absolutely no sense. The government creates a lot of these
problems. After the family had two children here and had been
here from 1994 to 2001, close to seven years, the government
asked the family to leave.
Through the public hearings we have heard many witnesses say
they were stateless. In other words, they had no status. Some
have been in Canada upwards of 10 to 15 years. They came here as
refugees. They have had children here. Their children are in
school and they still have no status.
One of the points raised continuously throughout the hearings
was the whole issue of permanent residence. People who have
permanent resident status are referred to in the bill as foreign
nationals. Many witnesses who came before the committee were
offended by that approach. It is unwelcoming and un-Canadian. We
should not be doing it.
I will tell the House what the changes were to the definition
section. Under interpretation a foreign national will be changed
to mean:
The irony is that throughout the bill permanent resident and
foreign national are printed side by side. This is worse than
leaving it the way it was. I cannot understand it.
One amendment that members of the opposition all agreed with was
that changes needed to be made and in a positive manner. They
should be made in a manner that deals with different classes. A
member on the government bench indicated that if a person lands
in Canada we should perhaps give him or her landed status as in
the old days. However that has not happened in the bill.
Another concern raised was the whole issue that this was
framework legislation. As framework legislation much of the
authority to carry out immigration and refugee objectives would
be found in the regulations. The regulations would therefore be
substantial and would contain much of the detail regarding
implementation of the act. Many witnesses supported the idea of
all new regulations being reviewed by the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
Even government members agreed. They agreed that the
regulations should come before the standing committee and be
reviewed. I compliment the chairman of the committee for the
good work he did throughout the hearing process.
He stated that the committee should be scrutinizing the
regulations.
1620
What do we see in the new bill? We see nothing, absolutely
nothing in terms of the amendments. I think many members of the
opposition were led down the garden path with the clause by
clause exercise we went through.
Ten minutes does not give anyone a lot of time to deal with the
complexity of the bill. I will close by again noting that a
number of witnesses suggested creating and including in the bill
a mechanism whereby members of the general public could submit
complaints about any aspect of the new legislation. Several
witnesses suggested creating an ombudsman to organize and
centralize submissions and report regularly to CIC and to
parliament.
I did that very task. The Canadian Alliance put together an
amendment to allow the minister to create an ombudsman vehicle
for people with complaints. We need oversight for the department
and I look forward to speaking to the second group of amendments.
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise at report stage of Bill C-11. I will
begin by complimenting all members of the committee who undertook
some very hard work in a very short period of time.
The last time Canada had a good look at the Immigration Act was
in 1978. The committee acted in a very co-operative manner, as
critics from the Alliance and all the other parties have
suggested. As we travelled we were impressed by the commitment
of Canadians to immigration. They spoke in glowing terms about
the value of immigration to the country in terms of its history
and how it has contributed to our social, economic and cultural
well-being. They spoke about how Canada had been built by
immigration from all parts of the world and how much that
immigration had been appreciated.
Bill C-11 and its predecessor Bill C-31 would build upon our
great tradition of inviting people from all over the world and
continue our great historical tradition of being one of four
countries in the world that recognizes its responsibility to
protect refugees, people who are persecuted or displaced, people
who find difficulties where they live and resort to all kinds of
unusual methods to leave their homelands.
The fact that this great country has been home to thousands of
refugees is a tribute to the generosity of all Canadians in each
and every region of the country. When we travelled that is
exactly what we heard from witnesses. They told us how we could
improve Bill C-11. They told us that our present Immigration Act
was a great foundation but that we needed to move forward.
Bill C-11 would do that. It would open the front doors even
wider. It would make it possible for families to be reunified
because it would expand the definition of family class to
mothers, fathers, parents and grandparents who would be able to
be sponsored. It even talks about working with our partners, not
only the provinces but stakeholders, municipalities, all the
communities that have a part to play in welcoming immigrants and
helping them resettle.
Throughout our trip from Vancouver through to Montreal, and
speaking also to the people in Atlantic Canada, I heard one
constant message: We need more immigration. We need to make
sure the front doors are opened wider in terms of the family
reunification independent class to attract the best skilled
people and professionals from around the world.
1625
We have a great need for people who can help build our economy,
meet the needs of our businesses and meet our labour
requirements. Most people indicated that we need more
immigration, not less, and that we ought to do more in terms of
the compassionate part of the bill, which is refugee protection.
The amendments introduced by the opposition and the government
at the committee level have improved Bill C-11. We can recognize
the great worth of immigration and make sure permanent residents
who want to be Canadian citizens are further protected.
We all heard a term that was rather un-Canadian. Everyone who
was not a citizen would be referred to as a foreign national. We
heard loud and clear that this was not how we wanted to define
ourselves. We have amended the bill to recognize the status of
landed immigrants and permanent residents who we hope will want
to be citizens. Everyone else who comes to our country on a
temporary basis, be they visitors or students, would be referred
to as foreign nationals because it is a term that is recognized
around the world.
The bill would also give landed class opportunities to students
or temporary workers who come to Canada and decide to stay. The
process must be improved so we can process the paperwork better,
more efficiently and more fairly.
We hope the committee will talk about resettlement and resources
that we give to our foreign posts. The committee heard loud and
clear from people across the country that they want to be
involved and they want the committee and parliament to be
involved in the regulatory aspects of the bill.
Motion No. 1 from the minister says that one of the bill's goals
and objectives is to acknowledge that people, when they come to
Canada with great professional attributes, be they doctors,
nurses or skilled workers, should have their accreditations
quickly recognized. Even though accreditation is a provincial
jurisdiction, we must work closely with provincial governments,
stakeholders, organizations, regulatory bodies and associations
to make sure that people who come to our country can achieve
their full potential.
We need to work with our partners to make sure we do a better
job. Motion No. 1 would ensure that people's professions and
careers are recognized and that they will be able to work in
their professions in Canada.
Motion No. 2 from the member for Laval Centre and Motion No. 3
in terms of regulations were well received. For the first time
our committee will be very involved in the making of regulations.
We will be able to hold public hearings before regulations are
put in place because we understand that the regulations will
determine how we implement the bill.
The bill is framework legislation. It talks about values and
principles but the regulatory framework is perhaps the most
difficult and challenging. We must be very vigilant in
reassuring the hundreds of witnesses, who talked to us about the
regulations, that the regulations will be set up in a fair,
equitable and compassionate manner. The committee will be
involved in the fall with the make-up of those regulations. It
will invite members of the public to again look at the
regulations and it will put in place a process to ensure the
regulations are fair and equitable to all people.
The bill, in its final form as we debate it today, with the
amendments the government and members of the opposition have put
forward, has been greatly improved. We wanted to make sure that
people who, for one reason or another, were denied a refugee
claim but whose circumstances had changed or who could not
disclose the true reason they were being persecuted, could
receive a second hearing.
1630
We have built into the bill another layer where a second hearing
could take place to ensure that a person who was perhaps denied
protection or had been denied a refugee claim but could not put
forward all the reasons could essentially come back for a review.
The bill would provide greater assurances in terms of permanent
resident status. As we know, the old act says that if people
leave the country for 180 days they could lose their permanent
resident status. The bill now says that permanent residents do
not have to worry if their jobs or families take them out of the
country or that they have to be in Canada two years out of five.
We understand the global economy and that people have to travel.
Sometimes people have to leave Canada but at the same time they
have not given up on Canada. Their families and businesses are
here. We must understand that in a global economy people have to
be mobile. That is why we would protect permanent residents by
assuring them that if they are outside Canada they do not have to
worry about losing their permanent resident status.
The government has put forward a number of positive amendments
in the bill. I look forward to debate on the other amendments
members will put forward, but there is a good reason we cannot
support them. In fact we believe we have taken them into
consideration under Bill C-11.
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
for the benefit of television viewers and perhaps of members in
the House, I would just like to briefly recap how the minister
introduced Bill C-11 in February.
What the minister said at that time was that Bill C-11 was a
bill that could be described as tough. Its purpose was, of
course, to open the door wide to the hundreds of thousands of
people who want to come here and whom we need if Canada and
Quebec are to continue to make progress. However, the government
also wanted that door to be tightly closed to people unacceptable
to our societies.
What I can say is that the great majority of the witnesses we
heard were in agreement with the minister. The bill is extremely
tough. In fact they are concerned. People are concerned.
In committee, we considered the bill clause by clause. There
were hundreds of amendments presented by the opposition parties
or by the government.
I must agree with my colleague for London North Centre that
there have been improvements. I acknowledge that. They are not
enough, however. They are very much insufficient, and this bill
continues to be an object of concern. It is perhaps the fashion,
however, in this Liberal government, to take a hard line. Last
night, for instance, the bill we voted on in third reading, Bill
C-7, was another fine example of this hard line.
In the first group there are four amendments, two presented by
the government, which I can assume will be passed with great
unanimity. Two others are presented by the Bloc Quebecois.
The first amendment by the party in power, which I shall read
for the benefit of our audience, is really within the framework
of what this bill is about. The amendment proposed by the
minister at clause 3(1)(i) is to promote international justice,
and I quote:
Understandably, no one can be opposed to such an addition, and
this focuses on the importance Canada attaches to human rights.
We can only hope that the proof of this will be forthcoming in
future years, and that there will not be any slip-ups as far as
the respect of human rights is concerned.
What the second part of the Liberal amendment is really about is
replacing the word néoquébécois, which is not anywhere in the
bill, with the term permanent resident.
1635
The second amendment, this one brought forward by the Bloc, is
much more important. My colleague from London North Centre
mentioned that under this bill the minister will have to table
the regulation in the House and refer it to the committee.
All of the witnesses we heard were concerned about the fact that
much of the enforcement measures will be dealt with in the
regulation. The legislation itself is rather vague.
However, in the bill as amended in committee, under clause 5
that stipulates that the regulation will be laid before the House
and then referred to the appropriate committee, we have noticed
that a small provision, clause 5(4), was tacked on, which reads
as follows:
5.(4) The Governor in Council may make the regulation at any
time after the proposed regulation has been laid before each
House of Parliament.
Therefore, the governor in council would be able to make the
regulation as soon as it is tabled. In some ways, this provision
undermines that amendment agreed upon in committee.
What we want is for clause 5(4) to be completely deleted. Since
the previous speaker referred to this amendment, I do hope that
the government will understand that clause 5(4) needs to be
deleted.
The third amendment is also from the Bloc Quebecois. I may still
be naive and somehow that makes me proud, but I truly believe
that we will have the unanimous consent of the House on this one,
because all it does is add the words a protected person.
Clause 19, which this amendment deals with, refers to the right
to enter and remain in Canada. The current provision only
mentions the right of entry of permanent residents.
What we are proposing is that the officer allow a permanent
resident or a protected person to enter Canada, a protected
person being someone who has refugee status, if satisfied
following an examination on their entry that they have that
status.
It must be noted that in committee the minister clearly
indicated that obtaining refugee status could indeed be
considered as a travel document. Therefore we think this
amendment must be passed by the House.
Finally, the last amendment in this first group is from the
government. It is rather interesting, because it is of a cosmetic
nature. We have before us a most important bill that affects
people and families, that will have an impact of the future of
tens of thousands of people, and the government is bringing
forward a cosmetic amendment. It is replacing the word travail by
the word emploi in the French version.
Now that I have gone over the four amendments, I will continue
to speak about this bill, which is aimed at dispelling certain
theories that we hear out there, particularly in western Canada.
What we hear is that Canada has really become a haven for people
who have something to fear from the justice system, very often
for good reasons.
It is perfectly understandable that a country such as Canada
would not want to have such a reputation. However, this has
nothing to do with reality. Recently, we had the Amodeo case.
Clearly, he should never have entered the country, but he did.
1640
However, does a single case become a majority? No, there are a
few cases, as there are everywhere. We have to realize that
people in organized crime and professional terrorists are highly
intelligent and very capable and that the best organized law will
probably never keep them out entirely.
The dangerous part in this bill arises from our desire for an
impenetrable border, which means we risk rejecting honest people
who want to contribute to Canada's economic and social growth. In
this regard, for Canada to do without this essential support,
which is a bit like oxygen, is a very poor choice.
As I said earlier, at the moment hundreds of thousands of
people are awaiting approval. Will they or will they not be able
to come to Canada? Four hundred thousand people is a lot. We
know the minister puts the figure at 300,000 a year. We never
reach it.
The aim of the bill is to perhaps improve the record management
process, and we support this goal, because everyone here, especially
members from large cities, knows that we have an incredible
number of people waiting months and years.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It is my duty pursuant
to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, Health; the hon. member
for St. John's West, Finance.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on report
stage of Bill C-11 and to put on record our continuing deep
concerns with the legislation.
Before proceeding I want to indicate how positive the process
was at the committee level. It is not often that we have reason
to make positive comments about the standing committee process in
the House of Commons. However, in the case of the Standing
Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the chair, the member
for London North Centre, provided very good leadership. The
participation of all members from all parties on the committee
was productive and respectful.
I want to put on record our thanks for all the work done by the
staff tied to the committee and for the help we received from the
research staff of the Library of Parliament and from the drafters
in the legislative counsel office who provided us with remarkable
turnaround on our proposed amendments. I also want to put on
record my thanks to two individuals in the legislative office of
the House who did an incredible job of writing and drafting some
80 amendments in a very short period of time for myself and my
colleagues in the New Democratic Party. Those two individuals
are Amadou John and Susan Manion.
We were operating close to the wire. We were under considerable
pressure to move quickly after the public hearings. We had very
little time to craft our amendments and to have them drafted
properly. Again I thank the two individuals I have mentioned and
many others. We were able to ensure that thorough consideration
of the bill was executed and that many amendments were proposed.
1645
It was a pleasure working with colleagues from other political
parties such as the chair, the member for London Centre and the
member from Mississauga. I also want to mention the member for
Dauphin—Swan River, the member for Laval Centre and the member
for Fundy—Royal. We worked hard and covered a lot of material
in a short period of time. One of our greatest regrets was that
the bill was pushed rapidly through the process, and we did not
have adequate time to deal with the significant topics at hand.
I too want to thank the 150 or more witnesses who gave serious
and thoughtful testimony before the committee regarding the bill.
We had a remarkable committee process covering many parts of the
country. It was an enlightening experience for all of us.
However, given these niceties and having congratulated and
thanked members for a productive process, we failed in making a
bad bill into a good law. We all say that we failed in improving
a piece of legislation that was seriously flawed and was far from
visionary. It is far from the kind of bill we thought was
necessary after the 25 year period since the bill was first
introduced and passed in the House of Commons.
We tried hard to convince the government to improve the bill. It
was not for lack of trying. In the case of the New Democratic
Party, we proposed over 80 amendments. However most of them were
defeated by the Liberals at committee. I am grateful for the few
that were accepted. However the amendments which were approved
at committee were relatively minor in nature. Our concerns about
the bill remain.
We have to put on the record the concerns of Canadians. In
reviewing the evidence presented to us at committee and the
testimony of the 150 or more individuals and organizations, there
was very little support for the bill. Canadians who spoke out on
Bill C-11 were very upset, disturbed and angry that the
government failed to use this golden opportunity to put forward a
bill on immigration and refugee policy that was visionary,
progressive, inclusive and clearly a benefit to Canadians who
wanted and believed in maintaining our traditions for an open
immigration policy and always operating on the basis of
humanitarian, compassionate grounds.
It has always been the vision of members of my caucus that we
maintain as much as possible an open immigration policy, that we
be respectful and responsive to the needs of refugees and
displaced persons around the world, that we always, at all costs,
ensure due process and that human rights are respected and
adhered to. On all those grounds we failed.
The bill does not meet the task at hand. The amendments before
us today go a little further toward improving the bill. We will
support them, but we have not dealt with the fundamental flaws of
the legislation. We hoped Bill C-11 would dramatically improve
our immigration and refugee policy and programs, which are under
serious scrutiny and evoke great concern on the part of
Canadians.
This has placed us in some disrepute internationally because of
our failure to abide, in full force, by the international
conventions to which Canada is a signatory.
1650
We analyzed the bill from the point of view of several
perspectives.
First, was it true to Canada's traditions and set of values
around openness to immigrants and refugees from around the world?
Did it fulfil our commitment to celebrating, respecting and
enhancing the multicultural diversity of this land? That was the
first criteria we brought to the bill.
The second was the issue that was raised by my other colleagues
this afternoon already and that was: Did the bill, the new law,
which we would have for many years to come, ensure that the
authority rested in this place and that true democratic process
was followed and adhered to?
The third criteria we brought to the bill was the belief that no
bill could be entrenched into law that maintained any kind of
bias, whether we were talking about gender, race or undue
emphasis on wealth and economic position in society. If so, that
bill would have to be changed to reflect those concerns.
I want to end on the three points I raised as priorities, which
were: progressive immigration policy, along with of course an
open humanitarian approach to refugees; legislative authority in
this place with democratic process and adherence to human rights
and civil liberties; and the eradication of any bias within the
law itself. Those were our objectives and we failed miserably.
The government failed Canadians by not ensuring that we went
forward with a bill that had addressed all those concerns.
I look forward to continuing the debate and trying to improve
the bill with the time remaining.
[Translation]
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to have the opportunity, especially at this point in
time, to speak to Bill C-11 at report stage.
[English]
I have concerns with respect to the legislation which we are
discussing at report stage. The Liberal Party of Canada has had
a very strong reputation with respect to new Canadians throughout
its history. After all, this is the party of Wilfrid Laurier,
Mike Pearson and indeed Pierre Trudeau. From what we saw at
committee for the most part, the irony was the Liberal Party of
Canada was most reticent to support the rights of permanent
residents and immigrants and moreover, the human responsibility
with respect to refugee protection. As we go through report
stage we will flesh out a couple of those issues on which clearly
we should have spent more time.
I want to compliment the hon. member for London North Centre. He
was very welcoming and collaborated in putting our debate
together. The two immigration critics for the Canadian Alliance,
who represent ridings in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, provided
first class representation. I saw that across the board with the
Bloc and very much with the NDP. We had an opportunity to have a
very pioneering piece of legislation.
The reality is this the bill falls short of that particular
mark. These days the government of this multicultural,
multilingual land built on immigration sounds disappointingly
less welcoming than it should.
The minister of immigration's proposed reform of the 25 year
immigration act, Bill C-11, falls far short of the standards
which Canada should use in treating immigrants and refugees to
this country.
1655
As Progressive Conservative opposition critic on the immigration
committee, I sat and listened to the testimony of over 150
witnesses and groups. They almost all repeated the very same
serious concerns. They were concerned that parts of the bill
were draconian and even un-Canadian. Even Liberal members on
occasion referred to the bill as being un-Liberal. That was the
result of the testimony which we heard.
We had a myriad of caring Canadians, who embraced human
diversity and human rights, say that this bill missed the mark to
protect refugees to the degree that we should. I would like to
add quite clearly and succinctly that refugee rights are in
fact human rights. Our inability to protect refugees in need,
and by perhaps not having the appropriate checks of due process
in place, can result in the torture, injury and even death of
individuals. That is why due process is a fundamental aspect of
our judicial system. That is why due process is something we
believe this particular piece of legislation is short on. I will
have more to say as we proceed toward the next days.
I will refer to the particular motions in play that we have.
The first motion, Motion No. 1, by the government is somewhat
technical and replaces lines 1 to 7 on page 3 of the bill. The
original legislation stated “to promote international justice,
respect for human rights and security”. The government is
advocating a reversal of that. It is saying that we would, in
co-operation with the provinces and territories, and of course we
would agree with that part of it, secure better recognition of
foreign credentials of new Canadians to make their integration
more accessible.
Essentially the first motion, by reversing the language, speaks
to the potential security risks as opposed to the well-being and
the good fortune the country has with respect to immigration.
The second motion, proposed by the Bloc, refers to lines 1 to 4
on page 5, clause 5. The motion calls for the Government of
Canada, parliamentarians and particularly the immigration
committee to have far more input and a much larger opportunity to
participate with respect to reviewing the regulations.
Members may be aware that this piece of legislation is framework
legislation. This means that it is not necessarily what is in
the act that governs the bill, it is the regulations themselves.
If these issues were done order in council and not scrutinized by
the committee, the role of parliament would be usurped.
I commend the chair, and the immigration minister who is doing
something that is quite uncommon. She is willing to provide the
regulations to the committee for scrutiny before they are
implemented and published in the Canada Gazette. That is
not very common. I must give proper credit to her for what I
consider a very progressive, yet conservative initiative.
1700
I would like to refer to Motion No. 3 which is also a Bloc
motion. It is an amendment to clause 19 on page 11, at line 11,
which is the right of entry of permanent residents. This
initiative actually dovetails with an amendment passed at
committee which was introduced by the Progressive Conservative
Party. I want to thank all members of the committee who
supported that initiative.
Essentially it would provide a status document to all permanent
residents. Once they obtain that particular position it would
ensure that they could travel, work and make a valuable
contribution, and their children could go to school in certain
circumstances. As we know, there are a number of individuals who
are sometimes caught in limbo and do not have the capacity to
work or to educate their children and so on.
The Bloc motion refers to the right of entry for refugees in
addition to permanent residents so that they would have a status
card, a travel card so that they could actually have the capacity
to re-enter Canada. This recognizes that in this global world
people do travel. Those people are protected. Those refugees
clearly need to be able to get on with their lives after they
have escaped persecution.
The fourth motion is quite simple. It is a technical amendment
on an issue related to translation.
[Translation]
The wording must be consistent in both official languages, which
is why the Progressive Conservative Party is in favour of this
amendment.
[English]
I thank the House for the opportunity to participate in debate
on Group No. 1. There are two more groups to go. We look
forward to the debate.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
thank you for the opportunity to put my comments on the record at
this stage, as other members have done. I think I am the longest
serving member of the citizenship and immigration committee and I
must say that I have seen quite a change in the function of that
committee.
I do not think there is another issue that causes such ranges of
emotion and passion to come out, not only from Canadians who come
before the committee but from members of parliament on all sides.
I say that not having sat on the justice committee, which might
be equally interesting and entertaining at times, or on the
health committee in regard to certain issues.
Immigration is such a passionate issue for all of us because at
the end of the day we are all immigrants or sons and daughters of
immigrants or, at the very least, grandsons and granddaughters of
immigrants. That is what this nation is built upon. The very
foundation of this country is that over the years, regardless of
who is in office, we try to develop policies that will allow for
resettlement of people from other parts of the world. Whether it
is the people who came here in the fifties, who could be called
economic refugees in some instances, or the people who are coming
here now from places in Africa or China who are modern day
refugees, they are coming here looking for new opportunities and
new hope. In my view, hope is probably the number one issue in
citizenship and immigration.
I say that because I have seen such a change in the committee
from the first year I was on that committee four years ago. It
was incredibly partisan. We could not have a debate on any issue
without shouting, frankly, even in committee. Often it happens
in here and we know this is a little mini theatre from time to
time, but it should not and often does not happen at the
committee level. That is where MPs roll up their sleeves and get
to work trying to work out the best solution for all Canadians.
In my view the committee was dysfunctional at best in the first
year.
1705
I do not want to be unfair or unkind, but I have seen a terrific
change that I think is due partly to some changes in
personalities and getting away from the clashes. Also, we have
grown together as a committee to understand the importance of
immigration to Canadians and to understand that partisanship, in
the case of immigration, should be put on the back burner.
I extend congratulations. I tremendously enjoyed working with
members opposite. The member for Fundy—Royal was great fun to
work with and insightful. He put forward suggestions, a couple
we might have adopted and many we did not, but he understands the
process. The member for Winnipeg—North Centre, representing the
New Democrats, did a tremendous job in representing her caucus
and in putting forward arguments that of course many of us did
not agree with, but that is the democratic way and the process.
We had an opportunity to debate back and forth as to why we did
not agree. Those members, with the member for Laval Centre, the
member for Dauphin—Swan River and the member for Blackstrap, who
was at most of the meetings I was at, all made contributions that
are extremely important.
Those contributions are particularly important today because we
are functioning in a political atmosphere that is in danger of
becoming dysfunctional. What do we read in the newspaper every
day? It is either something an MP said on this side of the House
about someone, or a battle with internal caucus fights on the
other side of the House, or something that someone did wrong. It
is just not stuff, frankly, that should be of consequence or
important to Canadians.
This is what is important to Canadians: amending the
immigration bill and changing the system. I know that members
opposite get tired of hearing the catchphrase about closing the
back door to open the front door, but that truly is what the
minister wants to do. It truly is what we on this side of the
House want to do, and I believe members opposite want to
accomplish the same thing.
How do we get there? We will arrive at this through a process.
I unfortunately was unable to travel with the committee as there
was a death in my family and I had to attend a funeral in
England, but I did read the briefs. I certainly listened to many
people who appeared before us here in Ottawa. As a person who
has been on the committee for four years, I like to think I have
some familiarity with the issues of concern.
However, the committee travelled in good faith across the land
and met with people, but it did not have the luxury—and this is
perhaps one of the downfalls of committee travel—of taking with
it senior citizenship and immigration staff, the deputies and the
lawyers, to respond to the issues put forward, whether they were
from the Law Society or an immigration consultants association or
just a Canadian concerned about immigration.
It all seemed like a great idea at the time. It sounded fair
and reasonable, but when we finally got into the clause by clause
back here in Ottawa, in which I had the pleasure of
participating, we got the answers to the questions that were put
forward and realized that while it might have seemed like a good
idea it posed some problems and difficulties.
It is not that we did not listen to Canadians at all. The
member for Winnipeg North Centre says we have failed. I
appreciate her perspective as a member of the opposition, but I
strongly disagree with that statement. In fact I think we have
succeeded beyond what I thought we might be able to accomplish in
terms of making changes and amendments to an incredibly important
act that affects every one of us and every one of our
constituents. At the same time, we built some goodwill among
members of all parties, even with me on the committee, so there
is something to be said for that.
I want to address a couple of issues on which we spent an almost
inordinate amount of time. One of them was the issue of foreign
nationals.
People from across the country who came before us in Ottawa said
they did not like to be referred to as foreign nationals but as
landed immigrants. If were to go to the ceremony at Pier 21 in
Halifax or to Pearson airport in my community of Mississauga, we
would meet people who have applied, who have sweated, who have
gone through the proper process. They have not come in the back
door. They have applied to become landed immigrants.
1710
I look across the floor right now and I suspect there are people
sitting there, including you, Madam Speaker, who took that step
of becoming a landed immigrant before applying for Canadian
citizenship.
People said they or their parents or grandparents were landed
immigrants, not foreign nationals. It was almost an affront;
people were offended to be referred to as foreign nationals and
the government agreed with that. I certainly agreed with that.
What we are talking about in terms of definition might seem
inconsequential and a small point, but philosophically it says to
people who live in this country as permanent residents, which is
exactly the same thing as a landed immigrant, that we recognize
that landed immigrants are permanent residents. It is such an
important thing.
Foreign nationals are referred to in the bill. If we are
talking about refugees or illegal migrants who we are dealing
with through a detention system or something of that nature, then
we have to use that terminology because it is used
internationally when dealing with other people around the world.
I know I have run out of time, but I just want to close on this
section by saying that one of the major differences in themes in
this bill, which we dealt with and disagreed with, is in regard
to dealing with people who are permanent residents, who have been
convicted of a crime punishable by 10 years and who actually
served 2 years in jail, the 10 and 2 rule. We dealt with whether
or not we should have the authority to deport those people
without giving them a myriad of opportunities to appeal all the
way up to the supreme court. It is a reputation that Canada has
to change. This bill would change it. If a person lives in this
country as a permanent resident and commits a crime serious
enough that the person goes to jail for two years, then the
government would have the opportunity to deport that person
without that person abusing the legal system. It is one of the
key issues in this section of the bill.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central
to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-11, an act
respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee
protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.
Before I begin I would like to thank the 150 witnesses, a broad
spectrum, who appeared before the committee. They have given us
insights into the practical life of dealing with immigrants and
into the various angles or perspectives from which they looked at
the immigration process.
I would also like to extend my thanks to the members, the staff
and the researchers of the committee. Appreciation is also due
to the chair of the committee, who has been very fair so far. I
guess he would have been more fair if he had accepted all 30
amendments put forward by the official opposition, but I
appreciate the work done by all the members as well as the
co-operation that existed. The process was very productive and
positive and really it was fun to work with the committee.
However, I am really disappointed that the output is not
proportional to the input in the committee. Everyone worked
hard, but the outcome could have been much better. I am a little
disappointed with the efficiency ratio of output versus input in
the committee.
While we are on thanks, I would also like to thank the chief
critic for the official opposition of Canada, the hon. member for
Dauphin—Swan River, who really worked very hard on the
committee. He put forward over 30 amendments. All those
amendments were to the point. They were very serious and
non-partisan amendments and I regret that most of them were not
accepted by this weak Liberal government.
1715
While the bill has much needed changes with respect to
immigration to Canada, which I acknowledge, it also has serious
flaws. I will be talking about those flaws at third reading of
the bill if I get the opportunity. For the time being I will say
that while the legislation may be well intended its outcome may
not serve its stated purpose.
Immigration to Canada should be simple. It is a matter of
common sense. Either the criteria to enter met or are not.
When legislators are working hard on the bill they need to use
common sense and put various aspects of the bill in perspective.
The lack of clarity, prudence and real enforcement behind the
legislation will ultimately cause more trouble than the
legislation it purports to replace. Bill C-11 will not deliver
what it intends to deliver without proper accountability and
management in place.
The minister has been talking about front door and back door
scenarios. Let me remind the House, although I am sure members
who have been here for a long time will remember, that when I was
first elected in 1997 I gave an analogy in my first speech on
immigration that the immigration system in Canada was just like a
home.
When a person knocks on the door or rings the doorbell the owner
of the house has the opportunity to open the door and invite or
welcome the person into the home. Sometimes the person is
offered tea or coffee, a conversation may take place, and he or
she becomes a guest.
On the contrary, it is surprising if the homeowner wakes up one
morning and finds a stranger sitting on the couch in the living
room having a cup of coffee. Perhaps the stranger discovered
that the back door was opened, entered the house while the owner
was asleep and sat on the couch.
I remind the House that with respect to our immigration process
we have to open our front door so that legitimate immigrants
similar to the ones who built the country can enter Canada
through the front door and be productive. We should welcome
them. We should also welcome legitimate refugees who come to
Canada through the front door.
At the same time we must close the back door because we do not
know who is entering through it. It could be a criminal, a bogus
refugee, or anyone who is not wanted in the country.
In my speech in 1997 I urged the then immigration minister to
open the front door and monitor them but to close the back door
and plug the loopholes.
The minister borrowed my analogy and repeatedly made references
to the front door and the back door. However she installed a
revolving door between the front and back doors and prospective
immigrants are caught in it for a long time because the system is
plugged. The plumbing system in the immigration system is
comparatively clogged.
There are many instances of appeal after appeal, just like
someone peeling an onion one layer at a time. Sometimes people
are caught in the system for eight, nine or ten years. I have
given a list of 40 of my constituents to the minister who have
been caught in that revolving door for 10 years or so. I am a
little disappointed. To use my analogy, the minister should
eliminate the revolving door, close the back door and open the
front door.
1720
There are four motions in this grouping. I will deal with
Motion No. 4 first. It is an amendment to the French version. It
is technical in nature. It is a housekeeping type of amendment.
I do not have any problem supporting it.
Motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Laval Centre
deals with the right of entry of a permanent resident and reads
as follows:
That Bill C-11, in clause 19, be amended by replacing line 11 on
page 11 with the following:
In her amendment the words protected person and resident are
added. Those who are under Canadian protection are refugees.
They should be afforded the full extent of our protection. It
should not be limited to those with status only.
When talking about refugees, Bill C-11 is a direct attack on
legitimate refugees. We support and reaffirm our policy of
taking in our share of genuine refugees but subclause 3(2)(d)
states that Canada is:
—to offer safe haven to persons with a well-founded fear of
persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political
opinion or membership in a particular social group, as well as
those at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or
punishment;
This translates into meaning that every criminal or otherwise
undesirable person entering Canada who claims to be a refugee
would be under Canadian protection from extradition to another
country if there is reason to believe they would be under a
threat of harm.
Motion No. 3 would improve the effectiveness of the bill. Our
party will support the amendment.
The definition of refugee in the bill needs further
clarification. Most Canadians know what a true refugee is. We
will do our part to help those who are truly in need. Keeping
them clogged in the system is not helping them, especially when
they are found not to be genuine refugees and are deported. Their
lives are ruined after so many months and years. The bill also
gives refugees, as well as refugee applicants, full charter
protection.
Motion No. 2, also in the name of the hon. member for Laval
Centre, takes away the regulation making authority by order in
council. Regulations should be made in committee. I was the
co-chair of the standing committee on scrutiny of regulations. I
can say that the government is in the habit of governing through
the back door and not by debating regulations in the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Madam
Speaker, thank you for allowing me to take part in debate on Bill
C-11, even if my time will be quite limited.
Bill C-11 deals with immigration to Canada and the granting of
refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in
danger.
I am very glad to have this opportunity to speak to this bill. I
remind the House that when I was the critic for my party a couple
of years ago, I had the opportunity to debate this bill, which
was called Bill C-31 at the time.
The purpose of Bill C-31 was to amend Canada's immigration law,
which dated back to 1976.
We all agree that the time has come to review the legislation.
Why? Because, as my colleague from Laval Centre pointed out
earlier, those who live in an urban riding, especially in Quebec
and in the greater Montreal area, realize that many citizens and
families must face incredible tragedies and go through hardship
because of the inconsistencies in the current immigration
legislation.
1725
With regard to the Immigration and Refugee Board, the minister
tells us that from now on it will take 72 hours for a refugee
claim to be filed with the IRB, which will have to bring down its
decision within six to nine months. Why do we support an
improvement in the process? Because the present system is much
too slow.
IRB figures from December 1999 indicate that the average time to
process a claim is about ten months. Right now, there are 7,000
asylum seekers waiting for a decision from the Immigration and
Refugee Board, and this is in Montreal alone.
We can imagine that while a person is waiting for a decision
from the IRB a certain degree of integration into the Canadian
and Quebec society inevitably occurs, and we must not be
indifferent to that. We agree that it is important to reduce the
processing time.
Motion No. 2, brought forward by my colleague from Laval Centre,
is an attempt to prevent the government from making regulations
outside the legislative process. We would like the government to
include these regulations in the future federal immigration act.
Why? So that the legislation will be understandable and
consistent with needs.
When I was my party's citizenship and immigration critic, I
remember meeting privately with organizations such as the
Canadian Council for Refugees, which is located in my riding. I
took the trouble to meet with them in my office.
I started off by asking them “What do you think of the bill to
amend the Immigration Act?” Representatives of these
organizations replied “This is not an easy question to answer,
because the bill is difficult to evaluate. The government wants
to pass a series of regulations, rather than include important
measures within the bill”.
This is why the member for Laval Centre's Motion No. 2 is
important. As parliamentarians, we must not be cut out of the
loop. We must ensure that the bill is as complete as possible
and not leave a large number of measures outside the process,
outside the bill, in draft regulations.
Another important aspect of this bill has to do with automatic
detention. It will be recalled that when the minister announced
her bill a few weeks before the last election was called, her
intention was clear. She was introducing a tough bill. Why?
Because she naturally wanted to respond to the repeated demands
from certain provinces west of Quebec seeking a tougher law.
This is consistent with other legislation, such as Bill C-7,
which aims for tougher treatment of children.
When I asked the government in committee to exclude minors from
the detention process, I was told that this would be included in
future regulations. What I wanted was for this to be a provision
in the act. This would be a clear sign of the government's
willingness.
A number of international conventions are mentioned in the bill.
I am thinking of the convention on the rights of the child—
1730
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. member for
Rosemont—Petite-Patrie will have three minutes and twenty four
seconds left.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration
of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
INCOME TAX ACT
The House resumed from April 4 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-209, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (Public
Transportation Costs), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as I said a
few weeks ago, I agree in many respects with the objectives of
this bill, which would allow individuals to deduct a portion of
their public transportation costs for environmental reasons.
The purpose of this legislation is definitely in line with the
objectives of the government. Measures dealing with public
transportation provide greater hopes than before, particularly
since the President of the United States has rejected, at least
for the time being, the Kyoto agreement.
[English]
In principle it is definitely on the right wavelength and
certainly on the same wavelength as the initiatives of the
government. The measures the government has put in place are
arguably superior to the proposed bill in terms of achieving the
desired consequences for the environment.
I will outline briefly a number of the government's measures. I
am not suggesting they are in and of themselves fully adequate so
I will comment on possible future directions in which the
proposals in the private member's bill could play a part. However
it would be premature to adopt the bill before considering all
the alternatives.
In general, the government has committed $1.2 billion over five
years to environmental projects of one kind or another. I will
mention just a few of these. The government has committed $100
million to the sustainable development technology fund,
principally to reduce greenhouse gas.
The government has also committed $25 million and $100 million
respectively to the green municipal enabling fund and the green
municipal investment fund which are both administered by the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities. These funds help the
municipalities to determine the feasibility of and best
approaches to renewable energy, building retrofits, water
conservation and so on.
The green municipal investment fund also supports projects in
areas such as energy and water savings, urban transit, which is
related to the proposed private member's bill, and waste
divergence to strengthen the sustainability of communities.
Other measures announced in the budget tried to achieve similar
ends. The budget provided $210 million over three years for the
renewal of the climate change action fund and other federal
energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
Finally, the budget expanded the existing federal green energy
procurement pilot initiatives. These measures were supplemented
in the fall economic statement and update with the announcement
of a $500 million federal contribution toward the national
implementation strategy on climate change.
When we put all those measures together they will contribute in
a substantial way to reducing gas emissions in the
transportation, electricity, oil and gas, buildings and
agriculture sectors. They will also support Canadian projects in
other countries.
The government also announced a $2 billion infrastructure Canada
program to support municipal infrastructure development. Most
urban transit investments are eligible for assistance under this
program. Eligible projects include fixed transit assets, such as
bus lanes and rail lines, as well as transit vehicles which use
alternative fuel.
1735
All these measures show that the environment is a high priority
for the Government of Canada. They are the result of extensive
consultations with various stakeholders and we in the government
think they are likely to achieve a greater impact at lower costs
than the proposal in the private member's bill.
I do not want to give the impression that everything is done and
that no more initiatives are needed. Because of the difficulties
in the Kyoto area, initiatives involving public transit as a
means of attacking air emission problems should receive a high
priority.
What the member suggested is one alternative. The National
Round Table on the Environment and the Economy is studying a
large number of alternative tax measures under the general rubric
of green taxes. There is also the possibility that initiatives
in the area of public transit will come out of the task force on
urban relations as well.
[Translation]
In conclusion, while the objectives of this bill are laudable,
more studies conducted with the tools I mentioned are required
to develop a program that will have a broader scope before we
can decide whether or not we accept this proposal.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker,
it gives my great pleasure to speak to a motion put forward by my
colleague from Jonquière, whose great concern for the environment
has endeared her to everyone in this House.
So that everyone knows what we are talking about today, let me
remind especially the heritage minister that we are dealing
with Bill C-209, which would provide tax benefits to those who
use public transit. I am told that the heritage minister likes to
use public transit, that she takes the subway or the bus every
time she can and that this brings her closer to her constituents.
The hon. member for Jonquière has introduced a private member's
bill that would allow Canadians to deduct certain public
transportation costs from the amount of tax payable.
This is an important piece of legislation that comes at a time
when environmental issues are of great concern to society. As
parliamentarians, we have to wonder how we can, individually and
collectively, promote public transit. To promote public transit
is to take any measure possible to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. In essence, the bill introduced by the member for
Jonquière deals with pollution.
Let me tell you something. I am 39 and I have never owned a car.
Early in life, I decided that I would use public transit. I never
really had a car.
I went to write the test and I had three months to practice. I
have to admit that I was not a very good driver. It is out of
courtesy for the community that I do not own a car. Beyond the
wisdom of such decision, however, is concern for the environment.
Of course when you live in Montreal, it is easier to organize
your life around public transportation.
I would like to digress for a moment, Madam Speaker. Every
Sunday, from three to five o'clock, whenever I have a chance, I
visit your constituency, because I train at the Claude Robillard
Centre. I know that you share my loyalty to that institution,
which provides Montrealers with access to equipment of great
value.
I now go back to my main point. If, as parliamentarians, we were
to adopt the bill put forward by the member for Jonquière, that
would give us an opportunity to show our solidarity towards
public transportation.
1740
I want to cite one statistic that will particularly enlighten
this debate: 80% of workers have access to subsidized parking.
The fringe benefits package offered by employers includes the
possibility of a parking spot.
We can imagine the kind of competition public transportation is
against. This is why the member for Jonquière says that if
nothing is done to correct the situation, there will be an
increase in the use of cars.
The member for Jonquière was telling us about the following
experience: in Quebec, all the cars that are driven
to work would, bumper to bumper, represent a line going from Montreal to
the Gaspé peninsula. People are used to driving to work. The
member for Jonquière is quite right to wish that as
parliamentarians we could provide benefits that would be a
little competitive.
I hope that all members in this House will want to immediately
give a good hand of applause to the member for Jonquière, who
has been forward looking and who is proposing through her bill
that public transportation be competitive. I also ask the
President of the Treasury Board to share our enthusiasm, because
she is also from Montreal.
I have my own card here. A transportation card, that we call a
CAM in Montreal, costs $48.50. I buy it at the beginning of
every month. I always use public transportation. According to
studies, public transportation users pay about $1,000 a year,
while car users pay $8,000. Can members see how it could be socially
beneficial to reinforce public transportation and to have tax
deduction measures accordingly?
The most interesting thing, when we compare pollution
generated by cars, as is the case for all those people who are
driving to work is that public transportation is
responsible for 32% of greenhouse gas emissions. I know people
living in the suburbs cannot always do otherwise. It is
different for them than for people living in Montreal, in Quebec
City or all those living in urban centres.
In these statistics, I noticed that a single bus can carry as
many passengers as 40 or 50 cars. In addition, its toxic gas
emissions per passenger kilometre are a mere one-quarter of those
produced by the cars. When efforts are made to use public
transit, it means as many as 40 or 50 fewer cars on the road.
Public transit is interesting not only from the point of view of
savings, but also from an environmental point of view, since
greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to one-quarter. I think this
is the most valuable aspect of the bill introduced by the hon.
member for Jonquière.
There is a link we should establish with Canada's international
obligations. I think the hon. member for Jonquière was our
environment critic when Canada signed the Kyoto protocol. If my
information is correct, when the Kyoto agreement was ratified,
Canada undertook to reduce by 6% domestic greenhouse gas
emissions by 2010. If we compare the 1990s to the 2010 decade,
we, as Canadians and Quebecers, should reduce our greenhouse gas
by 6% under that international agreement.
However, the hon. member for Jonquière told us that if the
present situation remains unchanged and nothing is done for
public transit, Canada will not only be unable to keep its
commitment, but emissions will actually increase by 35%.
1745
What does that mean? It means that, in the end, we do not have
much choice but to encourage more people to use public transit.
Among the solutions available to us to meet the targets agreed to
in Kyoto is the need to increase the use of public transit.
It is also interesting to note that the United States, a country
to which we like to compare ourselves with regard to certain
social measures, has measures similar to what the member for
Jonquière is proposing.
I am happy to tell members that in the United States non-
taxable bus passes have led to a 25% increase in the number of
people who use the public transit system. That experience was
conducted in a society similar to ours, with large cities and
extremely busy roads. That initiative was successful in
discouraging people from using their cars.
Since my time has expired, I will conclude by saying that I am
hopeful that all members of the House will support Bill C-209 and
that a few years from now when we assess the success of
environmental measures, we will be able to say that we as
parliamentarians helped to reduce pollution.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased
to enter the debate on Bill C-209. I congratulate the member for
Jonquière for bringing this very important issue to the floor of
the House of Commons.
I live not too far from Toronto and have occasion to go there
from time to time. One thing we have in that area, which I am sure
Montreal and other urban centres in Canada have, is traffic
gridlock. There is an inability to travel down the roads in any
kind of meaningful timeframe. More important, as other members
have mentioned, is the impact on greenhouse gases and the fact
that the family automobile is contributing to our environmental
problems.
I am told that the average automobile will inject the amount of
C02 emissions into the atmosphere equal to four times the weight
of the vehicle every year. We can see that this is a detriment
to our health and also to our road safety.
There are many different ways to deal with the whole issue of
greenhouse gases. An area I am involved in is what we call
ecological tax reform. That is the ability to shift taxes toward
polluters and away from people who are undertaking
environmentally friendly practices. It is in that vein that I
look at this legislation and enjoy the ability to engage in the
debate.
I have had the advantage of being on public transit systems all
over the world. When I was in Moscow I was amazed that its
subway moved about a million people a day. This is really a
tremendous feat. It shows what could be accomplished if we could
get more people onto the public transit system. It is a very
useful piece of legislation.
The problem we have when we deal with these kinds of issues is
the question of the choice. In this case it is the choice of
different types of policies to achieve the objective of lowering
greenhouse gases.
I started to study this legislation and some of the other
studies which have been around. For instance, recent studies
showed that on average a tax subsidy of this nature would only
increase ridership by 15%. This was in view of the fact that
ridership was at a very low level in the first place, with only
19% of available people using public transit. People who have
studied this issue have said that this kind of incentive would
have a very low effect on increasing ridership.
1750
We have to look at it in that vein, because if it only increases
ridership by 15%, it means that the other people who are already
taking public transit are the ones who will get the lion's share
of the benefit. We really have not influenced public policy or
the culture of people to be more sensitive to the environment and
use public transit as opposed to vehicles. It is that issue
which is essential to the whole issue of greenhouse gases. We
need to change our culture toward how we handle ourselves in the
environment and how we use our automobiles and so forth.
When I look at the legislation, it is unclear to me whether it
will have that impact on changing people's choices about how they
carry on in the environment.
I will take it one step further. This is an overview of the
environmental concerns. When I started to read the legislation I
got a little confused because it talked about providing receipts
for transportation costs. For instance, from time to time I take
OC Transpo. I buy some tickets at the store. I give the bus
driver the tickets when I get on the bus but I do not get a
receipt. That is the normal course of business on most public
transit systems. The reality is, in a majority of cases people do
not have receipts. However the legislation requires people to
provide receipts for this tax deduction.
It talks about reasonable amounts paid by the individual in the
year for the use of public transit. I do not know what
reasonable means. However it is clear to me that the income tax
system is designed to find people's taxable income, and taxable
income is usually considered to be earnings from employment. We
do give some a blanket deduction for employment expenses. The
bottom line is that we pay tax on the balance.
The legislation would change that to some significant degree in
the sense that it would allow people to claim expenses which
would be personal in nature. For instance, if somebody went to a
hockey game in Montreal, presumably they would use the public
transit and this would be allowed as a tax deduction. This seems
a very strange way to reward people. I presume we are saying
that if somebody else walked or whatever they would not receive a
benefit from this. For that reason, these kinds of changes to
the Income Tax Act would help one group of people and would be a
detriment to another group.
Another issue we are talking about is that of people who live in urban
areas where there is public transit available. My riding is
fairly large and has about 125,000 people. However we have very
little public transit. The only public transit we really have is
when Toronto's GO system sends a bus to our area from time to
time. In other words, it is basically a rural or semi-rural
area. These people have no choice but to use their cars to go to
work.
What the legislation says is that people who live and work in
urban centres will be given a benefit and those who live or work
in rural areas will not. For that reason it is a terribly unfair
piece of legislation.
There is no question that we need more people using rapid
transit. The question is, how do we do it? It may be effective
for rapid transit systems to use more alternative fuels like
ethanol as opposed to gasoline driven engines. This might have a
more positive effect.
There is a whole gamut of different policy tools that
governments could look at in the fuel cell technology. The
government has been very supportive of Ballard Power and
developing that kind of technology. There are all kinds of other
different technologies out there that desperately want our
support.
1755
Government to me has always been about choices. We obviously
cannot accomplish all the wonderful things we would like to do to
reduce greenhouse gases. It is clear that we must start doing
more than we are today.
The member has not mentioned it, but I suspect we are talking
about millions of tax dollars going into a project of transit
passes, only to attain an increased ridership of no more than
15%. We may well ask if we could take the same money and use it
more effectively in new types of technology to reduce greenhouse
gases.
Vancouver is debating municipal legislation that would require a
special driver's licence to drive in the city. That would
represent a quota system in which only so many licences would be
issued and a person could not drive in downtown Vancouver without
one. It is a way of pushing traffic out of the downtown core.
We need to put more emphasis on public transit. One of the
things I am trying to do in my riding is get the VIA Rail train
to be a commuter train. That would be a positive way to get
people off the roads and onto the rail system.
First, giving an incentive for transit passes would not achieve
a great deal. Second, it would give benefits to people who
already use public transit. Third, it seems unfair because a lot
of communities in Canada do not have the advantages of public
transit.
In conclusion, I am opposed to the legislation although I thank
the member for Jonquière for bringing the issue to the floor of
the House of Commons.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in the second hour of debate
on Bill C-209. The purpose of the bill is to allow tax
reductions for users of public transportation services in Canada.
I begin my remarks in support of the bill by congratulating my
colleague, the hon. member for Jonquière, on her hard work in
bringing the matter before the House. It is a notable effort to
protect our environment. People where I come from highly
appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on the matter.
It is a very simple bill. It proposes to enable Canadians when
filling out their income tax returns to subtract a percentage of
the money they pay for public transport from the amount they owe
in taxes.
In 1999 the House of Commons, by a vote of 240 to 25, adopted a
motion asking the weak Liberal government to review the issue of
tax exemptions for users of public transportation. However the
Liberals have done absolutely nothing about it since passing the
motion.
In the lower mainland of British Columbia where I come from,
transportation is a very serious problem. The city of Surrey is
one of the fastest growing cities in Canada and traffic
congestion is a very real concern for the people there.
Transportation is a very serious issue for all the population of
British Columbia's lower mainland.
The Greater Vancouver Regional District is planning to extend
the TransLink service deeper into our lower mainland to connect
commuters to downtown Vancouver. In fact, construction is going
on. However there is no federal government support to encourage
this type of extension which would take traffic off our already
congested highways and streets.
To assist in paying for the infrastructure extension, the
Greater Vancouver Regional District was planning to levy a
vehicle tax on users.
1800
Members can imagine how annoying it was. It was a very
irritating idea. People were very upset about a levy on their
vehicles. There was a huge public outcry for even suggesting
that another tax must be paid by transit link commuters. I am
surprised that this public outrage has not made any impact on the
Liberal government in Ottawa. From its point of view, all the
money it collects from gasoline taxes goes to general revenues.
The government does not have the courtesy to put money where its
mouth is, where there is a high demand, a high need, in our
infrastructure development and public transportation.
Last November during the election the finance minister flew in a
helicopter over the city of Surrey. He wanted to get a tour of
the city. Probably he saw there was not enough support for him
and his party in that area, so he chose to tour the city by
helicopter. He admitted to the media that he was not aware of
the transportation needs of this area. Talk about alienation. I
do not want to elaborate on that, but he is a federal cabinet
minister and claims he was not aware of the transportation
concerns of British Columbians living on the lower mainland.
I challenge the finance minister on what he saw at that time. He
is aware of the needs of transportation in that region. What has
he done so far or what is he planning to do in due course? I am
asking today: what is he prepared to do about the problems he
saw during his trip?
When we compare the tax on gasoline with the tax in the United
States of America, we see that 95% of the revenue in the United
States is spent on roads, on highways and, most important, on
public transportation. In contrast, in Canada something like
only 3.5% of the revenue from gasoline taxes is invested in
roads, highways or public transportation. On one side, south of
the border, it is 95% and here at home in Canada it is just 3.5%.
There is a big divergence or gap in the way that revenue is
invested in transportation and so on.
This is a very good motion. At least it encourages commuters to
use public transportation. Again, though, it is the
responsibility of all levels of government to make sure that
infrastructure development is there and that the public
transportation system is there when the public needs it.
There are many benefits of adopting this motion, particularly in
terms of pollution control, health and the environment. I will
give some statistics on what is happening in Canada with respect
to these three things I mentioned. Seventy-five per cent of
Canadians consider that air pollution affects their health and
16,000 Canadians die prematurely every year because of the poor
air quality. Between 1980 and 1990 the number of children
hospitalized because of asthma increased by 23%. Health costs
resulting from automobile use in Canada reportedly total over $1
billion a year. Motor vehicles are the principal source of
greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 32% of the total amount.
A single bus can carry as many passengers as 40 or 50 cars. It
is equivalent to that. Its emission percentages per kilometre
are only one-quarter of those of cars and other vehicles.
This bill is an ideal tool for meeting our Kyoto commitments. We
promised that by the year 2010 our emissions would be 6% lower
than 1990 levels, but if the current situation continues Canada
will actually exceed those levels by 35%. Rather than a decrease
of 6%, experts estimate an increase of 35%. That is very
alarming.
1805
There are certain economic benefits. Some 80% of people who
travel to work are entitled to a subsidized parking space, while
very few workers receive any benefit for using public
transportation. When workers do receive such benefits they are
required to pay taxes on them whereas most people who are
entitled to a subsidized parking space pay no taxes on that
benefit. This situation greatly discourages the use of public
transportation.
Public transportation provides access to urban centres, thus
promoting the development and economic growth of those centres
and communities. The bill would increase the use of public
transportation services. In the United States, for example, tax
free bus passes led to a 25% increase in the number of public
transportation users.
In the U.S. there is a $500 billion initiative to develop the
transportation infrastructure during the next five years. I ask
this weak Liberal government what its plan is. How much money
does it want to put into this big investment area? Canada is the
only G-8 country that does not have a national transportation
infrastructure program. The Liberals have no plans to implement
one. Bill C-209 offers one solution. I urge the Liberal
government to stop resting on its laurels and do something to
provide incentives to promote the use of public transportation in
Canada.
I will also very quickly highlight the fact that I had a meeting
with the disgruntled B.C. public transportation employees who are
on strike. Of the three levels of organizational structure, they
did not know who their bosses were. There is no responsibility
at any level of public transportation organizational structure. I
urge the federal government to show leadership and address the
issue.
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in today's debate on
second reading of Bill C-209, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.
It is not every day that we have a private member's bill with
such an objective. Why would the Income Tax Act be changed? To
provide tax credits to people who use public transit to go work
or for occupations other than work. We know that there are now a
lot of volunteers.
Before going into this bill in more detail, I would like to
take this opportunity to recognize the work done by my colleague
from Jonquière. The hon. member for Jonquière was an extremely
dynamic and active critic when she was involved with
environmental issues. Everyone in the House surely remembers the
determination and the passion with which she pursued the
government on the issue of MOX. Our colleague is someone who
believes that the environment is everybody's business, that it is
the responsibility of each and every one of us.
If it is an individual responsibility, can you imagine what an
essential responsibility it is for governments? There was a
predecessor to the bill introduced today, which was proposed in
1999 by the hon. member of the NDP, Nelson Riis, who was a
colleague of ours, as far as I am concerned, from 1993 to 2000.
At that time, the motion introduced by Mr. Riis called on the
government to examine the issue of a tax credit for the use of
public transit. That motion was very clearly passed: 246 yeas, 25
nays. It was quite a surprise.
1810
What is even more surprising is that since 1999, after
recognizing the need for such a study, the government that was
re-elected for a third term with a huge majority has forgotten
everything about it. They do not talk about it any more.
We know that governments are like citizens. Sometimes they need
incentives. The bill introduced by the member for Jonquière acts
as an incentive. Will the government agree to consider and
implement this bill? I wish I could count on it, because it
would send a clear message to everyone in Canada and in Quebec.
We realize that the environment in increasingly deteriorating,
especially in overindustrialized countries, like Canada and
Quebec that are in the shadow of the United States.
The recent decision by President Bush to ignore the commitments
make in Kyoto is very worrisome, just like the lack of a strong
response from Canada to that decision.
Vehicles are accountable for 32% of all greenhouse gas
emissions. Thirty-two per cent is a lot.
I have been living in Laval since 1967. In the last 30 to 35
years, I must say that the number of cars has increased. Of
course, with the development of the suburbs traffic towards
downtown Montreal has increased significantly.
In 1976, I could leave Laval at 7 a.m. and get downtown in 20
minutes.
Now when I come to Ottawa, and I do it at least once a week, I must be
in my car by 6 a.m., and I can assure hon. members that I am not
speeding; I cannot drive fast. It takes me between 40 and 50
minutes to leave the island of Montreal at 6 in the morning.
Does this mean that ten years from now people will have to get
up at 5 a.m. if they want to avoid spending two hours to cover
20 kilometres?
My colleague is asking that there be a tax credit. The hon.
member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve referred to subsidized parking
spaces. Of course, here, as members of parliament, we have a
parking space that is in addition to our salary. It is the same
at General Motors. My point is that there are many places where
this is provided.
The alternative is to get a bus pass. However, if I live in
Laval and work in Montreal, I must spend twice as much money on
that pass, because I must go from Laval to Montreal. Worse still,
if I live in Laval and work on the south shore, I must get three
different passes. These costs add up.
Why not recognize that a tax credit should be given to those who
are lucid enough to decide to leave their car in the driveway and
do their bit to help reduce pollution? Why not do that?
I know that the Minister of Finance has tremendous
responsibilities. I know that tax abatements are very difficult
to implement, but I also know that certain large corporations
already enjoy sizeable ones.
Why not average citizens? Why do people who earn their
living and must travel not get a break? Perhaps this would have
some effect on the thousands of motorists who jam the
Jacques-Cartier, Champlain, highway 15 and highway 13 bridges
every morning. Perhaps this would motivate them to do their bit
too.
1815
Personally I hope that the government votes in favour of this
bill. We are about to head off for the summer and it would
perhaps be a nice thing we could all do for ourselves to pass
this bill and be able to look forward to a cleaner environment.
We know that asthma and allergies are on the increase. This
would eliminate these problems for our young people. Our
seniors, for whom air pollution is a big concern, particularly
for those suffering from pulmonary or cardiopulmonary problems,
as many do, might perhaps be able to enjoy a quiet walk through
the parks in metropolitan Montreal. They could say “My God, the
air is a bit better”.
I know that I am dreaming, but when one stops dreaming, one has
already died a little. I claim to be full of life, just as full
of life as the member for Jonquière, and just as full of life as
the majority of the members who are going to vote in favour of
the bill introduced by the member for Jonquière.
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe
Saint-Charles, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to
Bill C-209.
I am listening to members of the Bloc Quebecois, who want tax
deductions for public transportation. They talk of greenhouse
gases and pollution. When people drive behind a bus and it sends
a blast of air into their car, that is not very healthy.
My riding of Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe
Saint-Charles is located near the Champlain bridge. While it
takes the member for Laval 45 minutes on the autoroute to reach
Laval, it takes an hour and a half to cross the Champlain bridge.
Members can imagine how much greenhouse gas a body takes in
there.
Before a tax credit is given, a proper public transportation
system is needed. The member for Jonquière wants a tax credit,
but I think we need light, rapid and pollution free, meaning
electric, public transit to eliminate the greenhouse gases we get
daily.
We have a light train project that starts at autoroute 30 and
goes downtown; it will eliminate the greenhouse gases the buses
emit. We have Mr. Chevrette's bill to restructure public
transit. The member for Jonquière must have heard Mr. Chevrette
say light trains were needed throughout Quebec.
Monorails, light, quiet and pollution free trains, exist
throughout the world. We in Quebec are 20 years behind in public
transit. It is therefore time to do something. It is time for
new projects that will eliminate greenhouse gases.
Before tax credits are given, we must set up modern public
transit, which the public will want to use, as is the case around
the world.
1820
When the Deux-Montagnes trains were put on the rail again, the
number of cars had to be doubled. Imagine, twice as many cars
had to be put on the commuter trains to Montreal. Let us not
forget that there is still the problem of greenhouse gases.
Imagine if tomorrow we could have a public, electric, light rail
transit system which could move about Quebec without noise and
without pollution, like the one that is going to be put in using
the Champlain bridge structure to carry commuters downtown. There
ought to be another one, which would go east-west under boulevard
Métropolitain, taking in Pie-IX, Henri-Bourassa, Avenue du Parc,
joining Mirabel and Dorval, Dorval and downtown. Can we imagine
what the Quebec of the future would be like?
In my opinion, before we start thinking about tax credits it is
very important to invest in public transit in Quebec. In this
connection, Mr. Chevrette has undertaken a magnificent initiative
for improving mass transit, and I congratulate him on it. He did
not increase the number of buses and cars by putting in more
bridges. The commission looking into public transit said no to
the construction of new bridges, and thus yes to modern noise
and pollution free, mass transit, electric transportation with no
greenhouse gas emissions.
A bill such as the one we have before us today ought to focus
more on a mass transit system that would be free of greenhouse gas
emissions.
I heard the hon. member for Surrey Centre say earlier that the
Liberals had no project. I regret to inform him that had he
looked at our red book, if he had read it, he would know that it
contains a paragraph referring to the need to encourage public
transportation and those who are interested in creating modern
noise free and pollution free transportation so that greenhouse gas
emissions may be eliminated.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-209. I congratulate the hon.
member for Jonquière for her consistent and strong commitment to
environmental policy in the House.
I heard the Liberal member opposite boast of his government's
commitment to public transit. The party that he represents
actually committed a paragraph of verbiage to the public transit
issue. I am certain that paragraph committed by the Liberals to
the public transit system of Canada probably has not had the
extraordinary level of impact on encouraging Canadians to take
public transit that he may have expected. It is not the first
time members opposite have been delusional about their party's
red book commitments.
I commend our party's critic, the hon. member for Fundy—Royal,
who has been so effective and instrumental in the development of
our party's policies on environmental issues. In the last
election our platform was highly rated by groups, including the
Sierra Club, for its commitment to environmental policies.
On the specific issue at hand, that of incentivizing public
transit through the tax system, my first gut reaction from the
perspective purely of a tax system is that I do not like to see a
tax code complicated through this type of Pavlovian tax policy
where we encourage one kind of behaviour with one sort of tax
policy and discourage another with a different sort of tax
policy.
1825
That being the case and given the overwhelming evidence that
public transit is far less deleterious to the environment than
individual automobile transit, the member's proposal is quite
innovative and should be seriously considered.
I also see the potential for a tax break. Whether or not it
complicates the tax code, we should always try to look for any
tax break we might eke out of the Liberals. They are not
biologically predisposed to lowering taxes by and large, so we
should be supportive if they are embracing a tax reduction in any
area.
I did hear the Liberal member opposite speak a few minutes ago
of the emissions from public transit vehicles. He was disputing
the information we heard earlier today relative to the
overwhelming positive impact of public transit versus individual
automobiles. He should remember that the emissions produced by a
bus for the number of people in that bus on a comparative level
have about 40 to 50 times less impact on the environment
than individual automobile traffic.
While it addresses a very important environmental issue in urban
centres, we also need a greater commitment to public transit in
terms of a national infrastructure. It is a great notion to
create incentives to encourage public transit, but we need a
greater commitment on a national level to our public transit
infrastructure.
This is becoming an increasingly important issue in smaller or
growing cities and municipalities such as the greater Halifax
area in Nova Scotia. From a fiscal perspective, if we look at
the degree to which the federal government has cut back in recent
years from transfers to the provinces, we see that the provinces
have been forced into a position of cutting back transfers to
cities. We as a country must take a serious look at a federal
and provincial strategy to improve public transit infrastructure
not just in the large urban centres but in cities such as St.
John's and Halifax to serve a wider cross-section of Canadians.
This brings into play the whole issue of how the federal
government will deal with the growth or the emergence of city
states in Canada, the consolidation of municipalities and the
commensurate increases in responsibilities. Some would say that
due to the commensurate increase in responsibilities there needs
to be an increase in the level of power of some of the
consolidated cities that have emerged.
That debate is fraught with all kinds of constitutional
landmines. We should not allow the fear of constitutional
difficulties to prevent us from looking at real solutions. We
should work with our provinces, not ram solutions down their
throats, to develop joint strategies to address infrastructure
issues, in this case public transit.
All of us who have experienced increased traffic levels and
environmental damage by growth in our cities realize that the
hon. member's initiative could go a long way to improve the
situation in terms of attracting more people to public transit.
However we must make sure that we do not ignore the greater issue
of ensuring through federal and provincial co-operation that the
moneys are there for better public transit infrastructure across
Canada.
1830
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
FINANCE
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Madam Speaker,
the question we are to debate this evening is one I asked of the
Minister of Finance about the equalization process, especially as
it affects the Atlantic provinces and in my particular my
province of Newfoundland.
When I raised the question it was shortly after the Minister of
Finance had met with the provincial ministers of finance in
Halifax. The indication given by the press was that he had said
he would not look at the equalization process.
The minister in responding said that was not the case, that he
was always ready and willing to keep looking at the equalization
process and that there was more money going into equalization
today than ever before. To that I say whoop-de-do because as our
budgets increase undoubtedly more money will go into the various
programs.
The minister failed to mention the $10 billion capped
equalization fund. This past year the cap has been taken off and
hopefully taken off for good. It is like a baseball cap in the
wind: throw it away and let it blow away and go from there. It
will give the provinces at least some extra funding at a time
when funding was reduced significantly percentage-wise in
relation to their total budget over the years.
The main part of the question I was asking in relation to
equalization was that the clawback provisions be disregarded
completely for provinces that were developing new resources. The
provinces could hold on to the new royalties from these resources
to build up infrastructure so that they could get on their feet
economically and start being contributing partners in
Confederation.
What happens right now in places like Newfoundland and Nova
Scotia where they are developing the rich oilfields off their
coasts? From every dollar they make Ottawa takes back 75 cents
or 80 cents. In some cases as they develop new, rich mineral
finds Ottawa claws back up to 90%.
If a person works and makes $100 and on the way home someone
takes $90 away, it will be difficult for the person to step up in
society, to be a contributing partner. We see examples of that
with people who receive social assistance from governments. They
try to find employment and when they do they make a few dollars,
only to find that whatever they make on the one hand is taken off
their cheque on the other. They are no further ahead and they
give up in despair. That does not help them financially,
socially, emotionally or in any other way.
It is the same way with the provinces. Our poor provinces will
always be poor unless Ottawa plays a part in letting them use
their own money and not Ottawa money to get on their feet.
I said to the minister that a precedent had already been set.
When Alberta came under the equalization program for a period of
approximately eight years it received equalization as well as
held on to its full royalties. The minister said that Alberta
was subjected to the clawback and that I was wrong. I was not
wrong. For a period of eight years Alberta received equalization
payments while holding on to its royalties.
Basically the point the minister did not address was how we were
to make the country better. We could make it a better country by
making all provinces contributing partners. We could do that if
the government changed the financial arrangements under which we now
operate.
1835
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, we have to get the facts
straight. Alberta received equalization for a short period of
time prior to 1962 when resource revenues were not included in
the calculation of equalization.
In 1962, when resources were brought into the formula, Alberta's
equalization entitlements were clawed back. Accordingly, after
1964-65 Alberta no longer received equalization.
In 1967 equalization became a comprehensive program and
virtually all revenue sources were included in the calculation of
equalization entitlements.
[Translation]
Newfoundland and Nova Scotia want to be less dependent on
transfers. It is a laudable goal, but these two provinces also
want to keep all their revenues from natural resources, as do
Alberta and other provinces. That is the situation at the present
time.
Newfoundland and Nova Scotia want equalization payments to be
maintained at the same level despite the fact that they are
getting richer. That is a problem.
The equalization formula is applied in a fair and equitable
manner to all the provinces. As fiscal capacity varies from
province to province, so do equalization payments. These
variations reflect each province's capacity to raise revenues.
[English]
Furthermore, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia resource revenues
already receive special treatment: equalization payments are not
reduced dollar for dollar but only by 70 cents.
In conclusion, to provide more generous treatment to
Newfoundland and Nova Scotia would be patently unfair to other
equalization receiving provinces which do not have the benefit of
rich natural resource sectors.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.)