37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 019
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 22, 2001
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
1400
| RIGHT HON. TONY BLAIR
|
| Mr. Ovid Jackson |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| ANTARCTICA
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| MEMBER FOR SYDNEY—VICTORIA
|
| Mr. Mark Eyking |
| HOCKEY
|
| Mr. Rodger Cuzner |
| GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1405
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| SAINT-PLACIDE FESTI-VENT SUR GLACE
|
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
| GIRL GUIDE MOVEMENT
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| WILLIAM E. MCKINNEY
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| VIETNAM
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1410
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| BLACK HISTORY MONTH
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| ANNICK GAGNON
|
| Mr. Andy Savoy |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| MEMBER FOR CALGARY CENTRE
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
| INDUSTRY CANADA
|
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1425
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1430
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| FUNDRAISING
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1435
| FUNDRAISING
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1440
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| PEACEKEEPING
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| TAXATION
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
1445
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| IRAQ
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1450
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| COAST GUARD
|
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1455
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1500
| PENSIONS
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| AMATEUR SPORT
|
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1505
1510
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. John Bryden |
1515
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1520
| PETITIONS
|
| Poison Control
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-9. Second reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1525
1530
| Mr. Scott Reid |
1535
1540
1545
1550
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1555
1600
1605
1610
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1615
1620
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
1650
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1655
1700
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1705
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1710
1715
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1720
1725
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| AUTOMOTIVE POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT
|
| Bill C-254. Second reading
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1735
1740
| Mr. David Chatters |
1745
1750
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1755
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1800
1805
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1810
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1815
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1820
1825
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Coast Guard
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
1830
| Appendix
|
1030
| Hon. Peter Milliken |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1035
| Right Hon. Tony Blair |
1040
1045
1050
1055
1100
1105
| Hon. Dan Hays |
1110
| Hon. Peter Milliken |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 019
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, February 22, 2001
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
1400
[English]
RIGHT HON. TONY BLAIR
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today all of Canada's parliamentary representatives had
the distinct pleasure and privilege of hearing the Right Hon.
Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, deliver his
address to the Canadian people.
Prime Minister Blair paid tribute to and talked about the deep
links between our two countries, which he said went beyond
economics and were deeper than commerce. We were very pleased
with Prime Minister Blair's words about Canada's honourable
reputation and how prominent Canadians are around the world.
Prime Minister Blair noted the development between Britain and
Canada in the use of the human rights act. Prime Minister Blair
astutely pointed out that our two countries continue to have a
special relationship, with Canada being the country in North
America closest to Europe and Britain being the country in Europe
closest to North America.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in April 1999 the federal government started requiring
Canadian residents to report their foreign assets.
This was a ham-fisted way of trying to reduce tax evasion. It
has not worked. In fact, it has discouraged many immigrant
investors and has done nothing for compliance. People are moving
from resident to non-resident status, thus paying no taxes at
all. This threatens to take as much as $1 billion out of the
B.C. economy.
Therefore, tomorrow I will send a letter to the Ministers of
Finance and National Revenue asking them to commission the
auditor general to conduct a cost benefit analysis of the foreign
asset disclosure rule.
I hope that the ministers and auditor general will respond
quickly.
* * *
ANTARCTICA
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
year scores of young Canadians visited Antarctica with the
Students on Ice Expedition.
Students and teachers from all across Canada participated in
this remarkable experience. They included: Ben Whatley of PCVS,
Justin Tighe of Norwood District High School, Aimie Elliot of
Omemee, Virissa Lenters of Cobourg West Collegiate and Justin
Standeven of Clarke High School. Most of these students are with
the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board.
These students are now ambassadors for Antarctica in Canada.
Their “Statement on Antarctica” calls on Canada to become a
full member of the Antarctic treaty and to ratify the treaty's
environmental protocol. To learn more about these students,
visit www.studentsonice.com.
Let us take the advice of these wonderful young Canadians. As a
great polar nation, we have a moral responsibility to participate
fully in the protection and appropriate use of Antarctica.
* * *
MEMBER FOR SYDNEY—VICTORIA
Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a great pleasure that I rise in the House today to thank my
constituents of Sydney—Victoria, my family and my staff. It is
an honour and privilege to be the member from one of the most
beautiful parts of Canada, Cape Breton Island.
As a professional farmer I have worked on agricultural projects
in my community and around the world, and I can tell members that
there is no better place to live than in Canada.
I have a very diverse riding, diverse in cultural backgrounds,
styles of living and occupations. I have rural constituents and
urban constituents. We have many challenges in our area. We
have a downturn in our coal and steel industries and we have over
30% unemployed.
Cape Breton is a very diverse society. We have to communicate
and work with all the various departments of this government.
This gives me a great challenge. As a new MP I have to learn
very quickly to make sure our concerns are heard. I also want to
help other Canadians to keep this country the number one place in
the world to live.
* * *
HOCKEY
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are all well aware of the national institution called
Hockey Night in Canada, brought to us every Saturday
evening during our winters on CBC television and on Radio-Canada.
This coming Saturday, Hockey Night in Canada will
celebrate the true spirit of the game with a 13 hour
extravaganza, programming from coast to coast to coast. Canadians
from Yellowknife, Sydney, Powell River, Fox Valley, Rankin Inlet,
Glace Bay and many other communities will share their experience
and love of the game. Through those stories we will share
hockey's place in the hearts and heartland of Canada.
[Translation]
To draw attention to this celebration, I have the pleasure of
proclaiming Saturday February 24 Hockey Day in Canada.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this government should be ashamed. It
should be ashamed because it continues to fuel the flames of
western alienation.
This past Friday a meeting was held in my hometown of Yorkton,
where over 300 people joined together to discuss the idea of
western separation. At the meeting it was stated over and over
again that Ottawa ignores the west, and people had plenty of
examples to back up their statements: the lack of attention to
the farm crisis; the unaccountability of our Prime Minister; the
lack of democracy in the House of Commons and Senate. The list
goes on.
Unfortunately the government refuses to address any of these
issues, which only adds fuel to the fire. We have been telling
the Liberal government about the dissatisfaction of westerners
for years and we have been giving the government ample ways to
deal with the problems, yet it refuses to listen.
The movement for western separation did not just pop up
overnight. It is the result of years of Liberal neglect of
western issues and a lack of democracy.
Now the government wants to blame farmers for this movement.
What the Liberals cannot seem to realize is that it is their
fault this whole issue arose and it is really not Canada that—
1405
The Speaker: The hon. member for Perth—Middlesex.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the last couple of months have been especially difficult
for farmers. I certainly understand the difficulties farmers are
going through, especially with poor prices and bad growing
conditions this year.
This year will be no exception. Farmers are facing rising costs
of production and an unfair playing field with the European Union
and the United States when it comes to subsidies. Some grain and
oilseed farmers in my riding, for example, cannot afford to buy
their seeds.
I call upon the federal government to come forward with an
assistance program that will deal with this financial hurt. This
is a critical time for our farmers and their farms, especially
with spring seeding just around the corner.
I want to reassure all farmers in my constituency that I have
not forgotten their situation and that I will continue to voice
their concerns.
* * *
[Translation]
SAINT-PLACIDE FESTI-VENT SUR GLACE
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, at Saint-Placide, on the shores of Lac des
Deux-Montagnes, last Sunday marked the end of the third annual
“festi-vent sur glace”, a celebration of kites on ice. This is
the biggest kite-related event of its kind in Canada, and the
second-largest winter event of its kind in the world.
This year, the theme of the festival was; “Let the child in you
take wing and soar”. Once again it was a great success with an
attendance of some 15,000 people.
I extend my congratulations to the municipal council of
Saint-Placide, its mayor, the army of volunteers, all of its
citizens, as well as the multitude of participants. Together,
they made this third edition the great success it was.
The people of Saint-Placide, working together on a voluntary
basis, have again shown the strength and spirit of leadership
that characterize the Quebec people.
My wishes for a long life to the Saint-Placide festi-vent sur
glace.
* * *
GIRL GUIDE MOVEMENT
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today, Thursday February 22, is World Thinking Day for the
Guiding movement. May I take this opportunity to salute the
Franco-Canadian Girl Guide movement, Les Guides
franco-canadiennes, of Ottawa District and across the country.
In Ottawa, this movement has more than 500 members, and has been
active in the region for the past 50 years. The focus of the
Guides franco-canadiennes is to educate francophone girls and
women of Canada and help them to develop their full potential.
Guides play a vital role in our communities and their devotion
and contribution must be acknowledged.
The guides of the Ottawa District, and guides around the world,
are remembering the founders of their movement on this World
Thinking Day.
* * *
[English]
WILLIAM E. MCKINNEY
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to Colonel
William E. McKinney, who passed away in New Westminster on
February 12, 2001. Born in Boissevain, Manitoba, on June 25,
1915, he is survived by his loving wife of 60 years, Beryl, four
children and six grandchildren.
He arrived in New Westminster in 1937 and retired as
vice-president of Johnson Terminals in 1980. He was president of
the Lions, a school trustee, chair of the YWCA board, chair of
the city crime prevention committee, director of the Kiwanis Care
Centre, Citizen of the Year in 1985 and president of the Canadian
Diabetes Association Vancouver, to name just a few.
He was awarded the Order of British Columbia and was made
honorary chief constable of the city. He joined the army in
1940, was commissioned and served in the U.K. and Europe. Upon
his return he joined the local militia and later commanded his
Royal Westminster Regiment for two different terms and was later
honorary colonel from 1980.
He left the community a better place than he found it. A man of
action, strong opinions and a heart of gold, who showed us all
how to live and never stop giving, my friend Bill was indeed a
great Canadian.
* * *
[Translation]
VIETNAM
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recently
met with some of my constituents, including Dr. Lam Thu Van of
the Vietnamese Canadian Federation, who expressed their concerns
about the continuous violations of human rights in Vietnam.
They mentioned the following concerns: attacks on freedom of
religion such as the arrest and detention of Catholics,
Protestants and Buddhists; the repression against intellectuals,
writers, democrat political leaders and protectors of human
rights; the greater control of the state over the national and
foreign press; and the decision to impose the death penalty for
29 different crimes, which led to the execution, in April 2000,
of a Canadian citizen, Nguyen Thu Hiep.
While noting that Vietnam marked the 25th anniversary of its
reunification by freeing over 20,000 prisoners in the year 2000,
I join my voice to those of the Vietnamese in my riding, in
Canada and elsewhere to call on Vietnam to end its continuous
violations of human rights.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, from the
day it was created 120 years ago, Canadian Pacific Railway has
always lived off public largesse. Now we learn that it has been
living off the backs of its employees as well.
1410
Using access to information, CP pensioners in Moose Jaw have
calculated that between 1937 and 1985 CP Rail collected more than
$700 million in employee pension contributions without paying one
cent of interest to its employees.
It gets even worse. When employees were terminated and pension
money was refunded, CP deducted 1% as a handling fee. Estimates
indicate that the corporation and its shareholders benefited
likely to the tune of about $6 billion in what amounts to
interest free loans over five decades. That is $6 billion that
should have gone to CP employees or their survivors.
Before this conglomerate is permitted to separate itself into
five companies, it must first be required to pay the interest on
this loan to CP pensioners and their families.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last fall, the
Prime Minister of Canada admitted that he made a mistake in
imposing the new employment insurance program. Now, the
government is back at it with Bill C-2, which only partially
corrects the mistakes of the past.
In addition to the permanent perverse effects of the current
program, the Minister of Human Resources Development penalized,
in the whole Lower St. Lawrence, North Shore,
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Charlevoix region, the workers whose
applications were submitted between July 9 and September 17,
2000, by requiring them to work 525 hours to qualify and by
giving them only 21 weeks of benefits. All this to correct the
injustice resulting from the minister's improvised review of the
employment insurance regions. There is no reason justifying such
discrimination.
The office of the Prime Minister was informed of the situation
on December 22 and we are still waiting, like the unemployed
concerned, the quick restoring of a fair treatment for seasonal
workers in our region.
* * *
[English]
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate
the recipients of this year's Mathieu Da Costa Awards. The
Mathieu Da Costa Awards program is the main vehicle in which the
federal government celebrates Black History Month.
This year's nine winners, from six provinces, are: Celeste
Milborne from Toronto, Ontario; Kristi Leavitt from Lethbridge,
Alberta; Sandra Djivré from Sudbury, Ontario; Elliot Skierszkan
from Kanata, Ontario; Amanda Merpaw from Nepean, Ontario; Ricky
Green from Winnipeg, Manitoba; Kelly McMillan from Charlottetown,
Prince Edward Island; Laurie Du Temple-Quirion from Candiac,
Quebec, the home of our deputy whip; and Charity Lloyd from
Springfield, New Brunswick.
I call upon all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating
these young people for their tremendous efforts.
* * *
ANNICK GAGNON
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this year's 13th annual East Coast Music Awards, held in
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, was once again a huge
success. Held every year to honour east coast musical talent,
the award show caps off a four day festival of singing, dancing,
jamming and other raucous activities.
This year Annick Gagnon of Grand Falls, New Brunswick, won urban
artist of the year for her self-entitled album. Annick is no
stranger to ECMA, having won francophone album of the year in
1996.
Annick's stellar career started at the age of 10 when she began
singing in her local church choir. With the quick realization of
her musical talent, many appearances soon followed, such as
opening for superstar Céline Dion and playing here on Parliament
Hill during the 1994 Canada Day celebrations.
Currently pursuing both an educational and a musical career in
Halifax, I would like to extend my congratulations to Annick on
her musical success and wish her good fortune.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is being
complicit with the government of Sudan in the perpetration of
human rights abuses.
The government of Sudan has inflicted unrelenting misery on the
people of Sudan. It bombs schools, hospitals and churches. It
denies food aid to war affected populations. It incites slave
raids.
This brutal regime is financing its genocidal war by partnering
with the Canadian oil company, Talisman Energy. Some of the
profits from that joint venture are supporting the Sudan
government's genocide. The Liberal government acknowledged this
to be true, as a result of the Harker report released by the
government one year ago, but it took no action.
One year later, it is clear that the government's policy of
constructive engagement has failed. Last month even Lloyd
Axworthy acknowledged on CBC Radio that Talisman “has not lived
up to its obligations at all” and called the company's behaviour
deplorable.
It is time the Canadian government put an end to any Canadian
commercial complicity in Sudan's genocidal war.
* * *
MEMBER FOR CALGARY CENTRE
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, on February 23, 1976, the Progressive Conservative Party
chose, as its new leader, a young Alberta MP, Mr. Joe Clark.
1415
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member I think is
referring to the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and he will
want to continue to do that.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On February
23, 1976 the Progressive Conservative Party chose, as its new
leader, a young Alberta MP, Mr. Joe Clark.
The Speaker: They may have but I know that the member for
New Brunswick Southwest means the hon. member for Calgary Centre
and I invite him to continue to refer to him by his proper title.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. It is the
past tense, the member for Calgary Centre.
Our party, our country and our world have lived a lot of
tumultuous history in the 25 years that have intervened. During
much of that history, up to and including the present day, the
right hon. member has played a leading and constructive part.
The young Albertan became one of Canada's most effective
parliamentarians, an international statesman and an eloquent
advocate of national unity. He has been elected to this House
eight times. and is today the acclaimed leader of our party,
respected by all Canadians for the passion and integrity he
brings to our public life.
Long may he continue to make history. Long may his outstanding
qualities of leadership continue to inspire his colleagues and
fellow Canadians.
A former prime minister often referred to the right hon. member
as a warrior, a description to which I am certain our present
Prime Minister would agree.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, just this morning the Toronto stock
market dropped below 8,000. We have not seen numbers that low
since 1999. How much lower does the market have to drop before
the Minister of Finance will table an up to date budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are going through a volatile period. Everyone
understands that. Everyone understands what has happened in the
United States. The simple question is why on the other hand is
it that the Leader of the Opposition will not point out the good
things that are happening instead of trying to talk us into a
recession as he has been doing?
Let me just tell the House that our housing starts, as an
example, are up more than 20%. That is the highest in six years.
Why does he not point that out?
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is the only
person using the recession word in the House. I am not. And I
was not talking to the market this morning when it fell below
8,000.
Falling markets do not just affect so-called rich people. It
affects many Canadians: those who invest in union pensions, in
RRSPs, and in the CPP. All of those investments have taken a
hit. As a matter of fact, about half of all Canadians are
invested in some way in the markets.
How much money will Canadians need to lose before the Minister
of Finance brings in an up to date budget and shows that we have
a plan to take us through these choppy economic times?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to take a look
at the transcript of the press conference that he gave earlier in
the week. He kept begging the press to ask him, to use his
words, “Ask me about the recession. Ask me about the recession.
Don't ask me about my litigation fees. Ask me about the
recession”.
That is exactly what he was saying. I would suggest to the
Leader of the Opposition that what he might want to do is to go
on a speaking tour of the United States and the litigation fees
alone would turn the U.S. economy around.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that is about as on topic as me
talking about him registering his ships in other places and
avoiding taxes and having people in other countries build his
ships when the shipbuilding industry here could use that
business. Some of us cannot avoid those taxes.
A falling dollar means a weakened economy. It zaps the buying
power of Canadians. It puts our economy at a disadvantage. He
might be at an advantage by taking his business offshore but how
much lower will the dollar have to go? It fell below 65 cents
just a few minutes ago. That is not my fault. I did not talk it
down.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): The
question, Mr. Speaker, is how much lower can the Leader of the
Opposition stoop?
If the Leader of the Opposition wants a report on what is going
on in the economy, let me give some examples. In addition to
housing starts, let us look at our retail sales. In December our
retail sales were the strongest they have been in the last three
years.
Our trade surplus is $5.8 billion. That trade surplus is a
record monthly surplus for this country.
* * *
1420
INDUSTRY CANADA
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, just last summer Industry Canada renegotiated a
sweetheart loan for $32 million to Buhler Industries in Winnipeg
with no strings attached.
This week, after less than eight months, Buhler Industries
announced the closure of their Winnipeg plant and its relocation
to Fargo, North Dakota, guaranteeing the loss of over 200 jobs.
Would the industry minister explain to the House how creating
jobs in North Dakota is a benefit to Canadian taxpayers?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, neither the Department of Industry nor the Government of
Canada have any interest in creating jobs in North Dakota. Our
interest is in creating jobs in Canada, and the member knows
that.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, if that was the case, then why did the industry
minister preside over such an occurrence? We have in fact
transported jobs from Manitoba in Canada to Fargo in North
Dakota. We have assured it happening by our taxpayers' $32
million funding that transfer.
I ask the minister again to demonstrate he has some
understanding of his own department as much as he has of many of
the other members' departments in the House. The fact remains
that Canadian taxpayers should not be fleeced to bolster the
United States economy. The fact remains that $32 million is a
lot of cross border shopping.
I again ask the minister why it is that Canadian people should
be paying taxes to create jobs in North Dakota?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member knows that the dispute in question regarding
this particular operation is a labour dispute.
If the member is suggesting that parliament should somehow
intervene with respect to the rights of workers and/or the union
or the rights of the company, then I wish he would tell us how he
would suggest that we intervene at this time.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during
the latest election campaign, the Liberal candidates promised
change to the employment insurance system. Some even made
personal commitments. I am thinking of the Secretary of State
for Amateur Sport and of the Minister of Public Works. Even the
Prime Minister acknowledged errors in the employment insurance
plan.
Nothing in the minister's proposed bill honours the Liberal
candidates' promises, especially with respect to seasonal
workers.
I would ask the minister if she intends to amend her bill to
honour election promises.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have presented a balanced package of
amendments for the House. The bill is now before committee.
Witnesses are being heard. The committee will make up its own
mind, and we respect that process.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
contents of the bill do not correspond to the promises made,
particularly in the case of seasonal workers.
The Bloc has been saying this for a long time. For months, we
have been asking questions. Ministers made commitments during
the campaign, even one candidate, now an MP, said yesterday in
committee “This is a cry from the heart. People are living in
abject poverty. We cannot wait”. These are the words of a
Liberal.
The minister is waiting. Will she honour the promises? Will
she break new ground and get the Liberals to honour their
promise, for once?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our approach is to ensure that the bill
makes its way through the normal legislative process. The hon.
member's approach is to block the bill, to split the bill. Block
and split is nothing new from that party.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the mayor of Forestville, Gaston Tremblay,
also reacted with shock when his region found itself facing the
shutdown of a large multinational corporation.
This region has diversified its economy by creating numerous
small businesses that rely on such natural resources as peat
bogs, forestry, outfitting and the shell fishery, thus creating
many seasonal jobs.
Does the minister realize that her bill is driving people out of
the regions, and that the solution is an employment insurance
plan which supports their economic activities and not one which
destroys them?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the members on the other side of the
House do not seem to realize is that employment insurance is but
one tool that we use. It is a very important tool but it is
there for Canadians who find themselves between jobs.
Another very important part of the formula is to build with
economic development a diversified economy in the communities in
Quebec and in New Brunswick. We are doing just that.
1425
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the minister stubbornly maintain such
a rigid and close-minded attitude when, year after year, she
rakes in an EI fund surplus in the billions?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, how can the hon. member be so stubborn as
to say to his constituents that their only future is to rely on
employment insurance? That is not a future at all. Benefits
need to be there and they will be there.
However, it is about more than that. It is about working
together with the provinces and with communities to diversify
economies so everyone can benefit.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I had
hoped to address my question to the Prime Minister, but perhaps
the Minister of National Defence could address it.
The Prime Minister insisted yesterday that Canada lacks
sufficient information to take a position on the U.S. missile
defence system. The Germans do not lack information. They have
expressed grave reservations. The French do not lack
information. The Italians do not lack information.
Would the defence minister acknowledge that it is not a lack of
information but a lack of conviction and courage that prevents
the Government of Canada from condemning the national missile
defence proposal?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary. The United States has not yet
said what kind of system it will employ in terms of national
missile defence. It has not given the parameters of its project.
It has not given the timing of it. It has not asked Canada to
participate because it has not made the decision itself on the
parameters of its own program.
Meanwhile, we are monitoring the situation. We have brought to
the attention of the United States our concerns about global
security and the need to take into consideration those issues. We
will continue to monitor it.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Italy,
Germany and France do not seem to have a problem in understanding
how dangerous this proposal is. The NMD proposal violates the
1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty. Canada used to enjoy a
reputation for leadership in promoting disarmament treaties, but
sadly, under this Prime Minister and under this government, that
reputation is in peril.
Why will the government not live up to Canada's proud tradition?
Why will the government not just show some leadership and condemn
the NMD madness?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and this government have made it
very clear that we are concerned with global security issues. We
are concerned also with the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. We are watching this situation very carefully. We
are in dialogue with the United States on the matter. We are in
dialogue with our other allies, as is the United States.
We have made it very clear that the ABM treaty is an important
treaty, that it is important to address it and that it is
important to talk to the Russians, the Chinese and all our other
allies.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In June 1999 Michel Vennat and the BDC board stripped the bank
president of his role in approving or rejecting loans just days
after he had expressed his intention to call the Auberge
Grand-Mère loan. In this letter the president wrote Mr. Vennat
and said:
[Translation]
The authority to approve loans in the absence of the president
... affects the arm's length relationship which exists between
the bank and the government, and has the potential to create the
perception of political interference.
[English]
Did the government approve of this stripping of the bank
president's normal powers?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member wants me to use the House of Commons to
interfere in a court proceeding now underway. I do not think
this is the way to use the House of Commons. If the leader of
the Conservative Party wants to do that, he has to bear the
responsibility for this improper interference.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
let me remind the Deputy Prime Minister of the law. Under
section 114(2) of the Financial Administration Act, a bylaw
change like this must be brought to the appropriate ministry, the
Minister of Industry, and to the Treasury Board of the Government
of Canada.
Was that notice sent? Did the government support the change?
Is there any other crown corporation in which the essential
powers of the president have been stripped away? Why is there
this special treatment of the Business Development Bank?
1430
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I reject completely the unwarranted premise of the hon.
member's question. He really has a lot of nerve lecturing me
about the law. Which law school did he ever graduate from?
* * *
FUNDRAISING
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the finance minister and the CIDA minister
were offended when we made reference to their choice of dinner
companions. Last spring they dined with FACT, an organization
Department of Citizenship and Immigration lawyers have now
identified as a fundraising front to the Tamil tigers terrorist
group.
Will the government make it clear to all its ministers that
attending fundraisers for FACT hurts Canada's interest and puts
innocent lives in jeopardy.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend is starting out with something which I do
not think is correct. I am advised that this dinner, a social
and cultural event involving the Tamil New Year, was not a
fundraising dinner. It was also attended by some 25 elected
people at the municipal and Ontario Conservative provincial
levels, including the editor of the Toronto Sun.
Is he trying to smear them as well in saying they are knowingly
attending a fundraising dinner for terrorism? That could not be
accurate and what he is saying could not be accurate either.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this was a $60 a plate fundraiser. Government ministers
should have known. Their own security service was warning them
at the time. There is absolutely no excuse for government
members attending. The government has had every opportunity to
condemn a group like FACT.
Is the minister now saying that the new anti-terrorism
legislation will not outlaw giving money to a group like FACT?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we all know with
regard to charity registrations—
Mr. Monte Solberg: I am not talking about that. I am
talking about Lawrence's bill.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Could I be allowed to answer,
please. It is within the mandate of the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency. We have a fair process and we all know the
process.
All the organizations that are registered as charity
organizations have legitimate activities. If there are any that
do not have legitimate activities like terrorist organizations,
for example, the solicitor general and I are working on something
to ensure that those organizations will not discredit those that
are acting in a good manner.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for months
now, the price of gas has been approaching record highs. Prices
sometimes fluctuate by seven to ten cents a litre on the same
day. All companies post the same price at any given time.
But we can rest easy. Today, we read in a study done for the
government by the conference board that “Consumers across the
country are well served by the current market system that
determines gasoline prices”.
My question is for the Minister of Industry. How can we trust
this study, when some of the conference board's influential
members include corporations such as Shell, Petro-Canada and Esso
Imperial?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Conference Board of Canada is recognized, or at
least ought to be recognized, across the country as an
independent organization, one that has substantial credibility in
many communities.
The conference board has done a study, one of many. Studies
have been done as well by many provincial governments over the
years, all of which have come to the conclusion that gasoline
prices in the country relative to the rest of the world are quite
competitive.
That does not mean anyone likes paying more for gas, but we have
to recognize the simple reality that there is no indication based
on the work of this study that some kind of regulatory regime
being imposed by government at this time will improve the
situation with respect to gas prices.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how does
the Minister of Industry explain the conference board's
astonishing conclusion that all is well in the petroleum
industry, when the introduction to the same report says, and I
quote: “Some issues, such as taxation and competition policy in
Canada, are beyond the purview of the study”.
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very easy for any member on any matter of consumer
pricing to get up and make a declaration or representation in the
House. The fact of the matter is that is why we have
organizations like the conference board to look at this issue. It
is arm's length. It is independent. It is an expert.
1435
The report is that gasoline prices in Canada relative to the
rest of the world, be it Europe or elsewhere, are competitive.
There is no indication or evidence that a regulation regime such
as being proposed by the member would do any good at this time.
* * *
FUNDRAISING
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the government repeatedly defends giving money to FACT
which is a terrorist front.
As of Monday, Britain has brought in new anti-terrorism
legislation that forbids the type of fundraising supper that two
of our senior cabinet ministers went to.
Canada signed an agreement back in 1999 that it would no longer
allow this to happen. It is now the year 2001 and I would like
to ask the minister a question. Will the new legislation, if in
fact it ever shows up, allow ministers to attend these kinds of
fundraising suppers? Yes or no.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is well aware
that in this country CSIS does not indicate who it is watching
and who it is not watching.
The legislation will protect our charitable organizations. I
hope that when the legislation comes forward my hon. colleague
and her party will support it.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, in fact members of the government
had any number of warnings that FACT was a terrorist front. The
Sri Lanka High Commission knows about it. The CIA and foreign
affairs knew about it and gave warnings that these people should
not be going to this thing. It seems that everyone knows except
the immigration minister herself.
Today her lawyers are in the supreme court saying that a small
group called FACT is in fact a terrorist front. Does the
minister agree with those documents that are in her name or not?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am looking at the language of the factum and the hon.
member goes far beyond what the factum says. This is a matter
being argued in court.
I suggest to her, because of the sensitive nature of the court
case, that she be careful in her language and that she not try to
stereotype or smear several hundred thousand good Canadians with
her language.
* * *
[Translation]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as we know,
the European Commission has banned all exports of cattle, meat or
milk from Great Britain until March 1, after 27 cases of foot and
mouth disease were discovered in an abattoir in England.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can he tell us
whether Canada imports these products from Great Britain and, if
so, whether it intends to follow the lead of the European
Commission?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we became aware of this, Canada
suspended the issuance of import permits for semen, embryos,
animals and animal products from the United Kingdom because of
the confirmed outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Great Britain
also acknowledges that it cannot identify the products it has
exported to Canada.
Yesterday, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency indicated that
there was no question of banning the use of animal meal in cattle
food.
Can the minister tell us with certainty whether animal meal is
still being imported into this country?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the fact that Canada has a
very good tracing system. When products from the United Kingdom
or anyplace in the European Union come to Canada, the tracing
system of where they are and where they can be used is followed
very thoroughly and monitored all the way to ensure that any risk
material does not get into the food chain system in Canada.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in 1995 Algerian refugee claimant Ahmed Ressam was
arrested for breaking the law but he was allowed to stay in
Canada. He was arrested again, this time for theft, but again he
was not deported. Finally, he was deported in 1999 after trying
to smuggle explosives into the United States.
Yesterday we learned in a French court that Mr. Ressam's
Montreal apartment was being used during this time as
headquarters for the world's most wanted terrorist, Ossama bin
Laden.
Could the immigration minister tell us why this dangerous
terrorist was allowed to stay in Canada four years after he
should have been deported?
1440
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, fighting terrorism is a number one
priority for the government. We have a security intelligence
agency that is very capable and able to observe these people.
Observance and co-operation with other governments around the
world prevent disasters from happening like in this very
situation.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I see the immigration minister is glued to her seat
today. If combating terrorism is the top priority of the
government, why was this twice arrested man who had broken the
terms of his refugee claim allowed to stay in one of our largest
cities for four years, using his apartment as headquarters for
the most dangerous terrorist front in the world?
What kind of a safety protection plan is that for Canadians? Why
was this man allowed to operate this terrorist organization for
four years when he should have been deported?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is not and will not be a country
that permits, welcomes or allows criminals, terrorists or those
who have committed crimes against humanity to remain in Canada.
They are inadmissible to Canada and are removed as quickly as
possible.
However, I reject the Canadian Alliance's suggestion and attempt
to equate refugees with terrorists. I have to say that we look
at cases individually. Everyone is entitled to due process but
not everyone should be maligned.
* * *
PEACEKEEPING
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence. The creation
of the United Nations buffer zone between Ethiopia and Eritrea
should spell the end of a bitter border war.
There are clearly significant problems to overcome, including
the demarcation of the border, the return of over 1,000 prisoners
of war and the need to feed hundreds of thousands of refugees.
Could the minister to comment on Canada's peacekeeping role and
his assessment of the present situation?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are indeed in Africa. We have been in a number
of operations more recently in the Central African Republic, but
we have observers in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in
Sierra Leone.
Our largest contingent in Africa at the moment is on the border
between Eritrea and Ethiopia. We have some 450 troops there.
They are doing a terrific job. They have the greatest piece of
new equipment which is the envy of all of our allies. It is the
armoured personnel carrier known as the LAV III, and they have
great looking uniforms as well.
* * *
TAXATION
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Soaring oil
prices have resulted in record profits for big oil companies in
the country. In fact, in the first three quarters of 2000, we
had a profit increase in the energy sector of about $4 billion or
a 127% increase over 1999.
In light of that, would the minister consider bringing in a
surtax on big oil companies in order to use that money to reduce
our dependence on fossil fuels and invest in alternative energy
sources?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows full well, we have a corporate
taxation system which applies to all industries. We do not want
to be distorting investment decisions. The fact is that the
energy industry does make a major contribution to the country's
balance of payments. It makes a major contribution to
employment.
The question of rising oil prices and gasoline prices is a
matter of major concern to the government. We will continue to
monitor the situation.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it seems the Minister of Finance is more concerned about
protecting the big oil and gas companies.
By introducing this surtax that my friend has suggested, it
would be cost effective and it could be used to develop
environmentally sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels. Why
will the minister not consider that at least as a possibility?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. gentleman should know that the Government of
Canada is already making very substantial investments in energy
efficiency, renewable energy alternatives and alternative forms
of energy.
We are a major investor in the fuel cell technology, for
example. We are a major investor in green power procurement,
including in the province of the hon. gentleman from
Regina—Qu'Appelle. We are a major investor in the ethanol
industry. Our objective there is to triple Canadian capacity for
producing ethanol.
Renewables, alternatives, energy efficiency, all of those are
priorities for the Government of Canada. In that direction we
are prepared to invest $1.1 billion over the next five years.
* * *
1445
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Yesterday I quoted from a letter signed by four Atlantic
premiers, asking that the government renew the softwood lumber
agreement and especially the maritime accord.
The national chief of the Assembly of First Nations has now said
that a new softwood agreement could be very beneficial for all.
Major industries want a renewed agreement, but everybody is
baffled because the government has not given any indication of
its position.
My question is simple. Is the government attempting to renew
the softwood lumber agreement. Yes or no.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed I will be meeting on Monday with
my counterpart, Bob Zoellick, the new United States trade
representative. Of course softwood lumber will be a very
important issue that we will raise.
I have had the opportunity of spending last week in China with
the premiers of most of our provinces. I have had several
discussions on softwood lumber issues with all provincial
premiers. I have met a lot of people from industry. We are
trying to reflect the consensus that exists in the country.
It is a difficult file, but we are all moving together on this
particular front. I am looking forward to the discussion on
Monday with Bob Zoellick.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
October economic statement does not take into account red book
three promises. Nor does it take into account the throne speech
commitments. The estimated price tag for these commitments is
approximately $2 billion.
Why will the finance minister not bring in a new budget to
authorize these commitments, or is it that the Liberals have no
intention of keeping their red book promises yet again?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member ought to know that in the October
statement we did provide the context for the red book spending.
It has all been accounted for.
If I might simply add to that, given the importance of the House
of Commons finance committee in terms of what is happening, the
ups and downs of the global economy, I would like to congratulate
the member for Kings—Hants on his appointment as vice-chairman
of the finance committee. I am sure he will bring his valuable
experience to bear on the issues of the day.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, three families of murder victims are visiting with us
today. They question the government's failure to properly
incarcerate the murderers of their loved ones. The government
appears more concerned with improving the comfort level of
killers than it does with meaningful denunciation of their
crimes.
How is it that individuals, only months after receiving a life
sentence for brutal murders, are transferred to medium and even
minimum security institutions? Has the solicitor general even
bothered to consider the impact that these decisions have on the
families of the victims. If he has, what will he do about it?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult situation, in
particular for the families. I am pleased to report that the
commissioner has informed me that she will be revising the policy
of Correctional Service Canada so that offenders convicted of
first and second degree murder will serve a mandatory term of at
least two years in a maximum security institution.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. It is about time
we got some action on this file. How long will it take to
implement it?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious situation. We
have families here that are hurting. It is not a place to play
politics.
The fact of the matter is that I have great sympathy for the
families, I certainly do. I care, as most every member in the
House does. The fact of the matter is Correctional Service
Canada has reacted. I do not run Correctional Service Canada,
but it will be implemented very shortly.
* * *
[Translation]
IRAQ
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, six days
after the heavy Anglo-American bombing of Iraq, with a new and
worrying incident just occurring, world opinion is becoming
clear.
All of the European countries, Russia and China oppose it. The
Arab countries are edgy. Canada alone has supported the bombing
without reservation.
Is Canada prepared to review its support for military solutions
in order to work actively toward a diplomatic solution?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we think it important that
Canada support the preservation of the no fly zone in Iraq for
the protection of the Kurds and the Shiites. This is why Canada
supported the bombing of military installations near the
demarcation line.
1450
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, many
countries are saying that these exclusion zones are illegal.
They were not decreed by the UN to serve as areas for bombing at
leisure.
The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade unanimously passed a motion to have the non-military
embargo lifted and diplomatic solutions sought. Why does Canada
continue to be drawn into a policy that impoverishes the people
of Iraq, causes the death of thousands of children and, in the
end, strengthens Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to maintain
this no fly zone in order—and I repeat—to protect the Kurdish
and Shiite populations. It is important to protect these people.
We can see how Saddam Hussein treats his people. As they die of
starvation, he continues to build homes and castles. Canada must
take the stand it is taking today and has taken in the past.
* * *
[English]
COAST GUARD
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last Friday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
disbanded the Sea Island dive team. He stated it was based on
expert recommendations.
Yet in 1999, Ms. Lynn Peters, an HRDC technical inspector, did
an audit and praised the diving team as an exemplary diving team.
This year on January 26 the coast guard's own independent
auditor, Darrel Skaalrud, praised the diving team for its
expertise and for its skill. Why then did the minister disband
this diving team?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome the hon. member for
Richmond. I am a constituent of his so I will watch him closely.
With regard to search and rescue, I announced last year $115
million to enhance our search and rescue. The Alliance Party
voted against that in the last federal election. It was because
of the government that we were able to invest $14 million in
state of the art hovercraft so we could take action.
With regard to the specific case, the hon. member knows that I
have asked for a full review so that we could—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond.
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the minister speaks of a review, yet in the meantime
lives are at risk.
Sadly a life was taken last week, as the minister knows. In the
meantime will the minister today commit to the immediate
reinstatement of the diving team so that no longer will a life be
lost?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should make sure
that all the facts are there so we can review them. I think it
is irresponsible for the hon. member not to look at the facts and
move toward sleazy political points on the back of a family that
is very hurt at this time. It is shameful for the member to
stand without knowing all the facts.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on a cold day like today we are able to observe the various
emissions that are released into the atmosphere from our
vehicles, industries and other sources. This makes us aware of
the potential impact they have on our health. Therefore, it is
appropriate to think about air quality and our responsibilities.
On Monday the Minister of the Environment announced a major
federal initiative to accelerate action on clean air. How will
this help our country?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on Monday I announced a $120 million program spread
over four years. This package includes strong action on vehicles
and fuels that will reduce emissions, for example, of nitrous
oxide by 90% on regular passenger vehicles, 77% on light trucks,
and on SUVs and other similar vehicles, over a 95% reduction in
such emissions.
1455
In addition, there will be off road engine changes affecting
power saws, quad tracks, lawnmowers and other small motors, which
I might add are the cause of 20%.
* * *
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, softwood lumber is Canada's largest
net export. A U.S. coalition is trying to reduce market access
for Canadian lumber by encouraging all U.S. producers to petition
their government for tariffs on Canadian lumber imports.
A new United States law allows these companies a no risk profit
by having the duties paid by Canadian companies passed on to
them. This will give our U.S. competitors a huge advantage over
Canadian companies.
What action is this minister taking to stop this gross violation
of the trade agreements between our two countries?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed softwood lumber issues are always
very complex and are extremely important. It is a top issue for
our government. It will be the top issue that I will be raising
with the new United States trade representative on Monday.
Indeed, as we all know, we are going toward free trade. This is
what we want. No one in the country wants the sort of quota
agreement that we had in the last five years. Now the matter is
how we will live the transition toward free trade. We want to
live it as well as possible as a united country. We will discuss
it on Monday in Washington.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is a serious question, too
serious for long discussions and negotiations.
Under this protectionist law American producers will share the
duties collected. They are being told it costs nothing to
petition but there are huge rewards if they win this tariff
ruling.
This petition is an immediate provocation that will have serious
consequences on our lumber industry. Even the WTO cannot take
immediate action in this crisis. The WTO is a long term
solution, and the minister is talking about discussion. What
action is he taking to respond to this provocation now?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have indicated quite clearly, I
thought, in my answer that I will be raising the particular
legislation with the United States trade representative on
Monday. This is the way we deal with complex issues with the
United States.
I am confident that we will be able to have a constructive
dialogue on one of our most important exports to the United
States. I want to reassure our colleagues from Atlantic Canada
that we will take into account the point of view of every region
on that very complex file.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, still on the
softwood lumber issue, the Minister for International Trade, who
will be meeting with the U.S. commerce secretary, Mr. Zoellick,
just referred to a consensus.
Could the minister assure us that this consensus is about
restoring free trade for softwood lumber, as he said in the House
and as the Prime Minister confirmed to the House a few weeks ago?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is indeed a consensus
across the country that we should not restrict our softwood
exports to please whoever on the American side.
People across the country hope that we are headed toward free
trade, and we want to make sure that, through constructive
dialogue with the United States, we will have a smooth transition
to free trade.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Violent conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian people
continues to escalate at an alarming rate in the Middle East.
Will the minister tell the House what initiatives the federal
government is undertaking to promote an end to the violence and a
renewal of the peace process in the Middle East that is so
desperately needed today?
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since violence erupted last
fall, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have
continuously been in contact with Palestinian and Israeli
regional leaders to urge them to put an end to violence and
return to the negotiating table.
Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs had a meeting with
Palestine's Minister for International Co-operation, Dr. Nabil
Sha'ath.
1500
Dr. Sha'ath said it was urgent that Palestinians and Israelis
take measures to end the violence, and that the parties should
return to the negotiating table and, together, prepare peace, not
war.
* * *
[English]
PENSIONS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, over 140,000 British expatriate pensioners living in
Canada are trying to get by on a pension that has been frozen
since they left Britain. If these same people had moved to
Israel, the United States or even Malta, their pensions would
have been indexed, but because they live in Canada for some
reason they pay the personal price.
The Prime Minister has promised to raise this issue with Mr.
Blair during today's visit. Could the minister now tell the
House following meetings with Mr. Blair that British expatriates
living in Canada will now receive the indexed pensions that they
deserve?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is one
that has been raised with a number of us in our capacity as MPs
by British subjects resident in Canada. I understand it is
totally a matter for the British authorities.
The Prime Minister's discussions with Mr. Blair have not yet
concluded. I hope to have a report for the House tomorrow. The
hon. member has raised an important subject of interest to many
of us on both sides of the House.
* * *
[Translation]
AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Secretary of State for Amateur Sport recently described sports as
the best vehicle for national unity, which is contrary to his
avowed desire not to mix politics and sports. He has also been
quoted as saying that the school system will be the basis of his
strategy.
Are we to understand from these words of the secretary of state
that he has changed his mind and intends to implement his
national sport policy by interfering in the field of education?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my response to my hon. colleague, who has been
sent to do the dirty work for the future premier of Quebec, is
that here in this House we have decided to work on behalf of the
population as a whole.
Even the people in charge of Sports-Québec are working with me,
and Sports-Québec as a whole is behind me. The hon. member ought
to send the message to the Quebec minister responsible for sports
to work with the Government of Canada, because we have the
interests of Quebec at heart.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, looking at the upcoming calendar, I would like to ask
the government House leader what kind of business he has planned
for the rest of the day and the rest of the week. Will he get
some meaningful legislation passed before the business of supply
is finished? It looks pretty shaky to me.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope the opposition
will co-operate to ensure that we pass all the meaningful
legislation that we have. I will take the comments of the
opposition House leader as representation to his own colleagues
to do just that.
This afternoon we will debate second reading of Bill C-9, the
administrative amendments to the Canada Elections Act brought by
a decision of the courts.
On Friday it is my intention, following Bill C-9, to debate Bill
S-2 respecting marine liability.
On Monday we would like to commence consideration of the very
important and excellent piece of legislation Bill C-11, the
immigration bill. This would be followed by Bill C-12, the
Judges Act amendments and Bill C-5, the species at risk
legislation which is equally important.
Thursday, March 1, shall be an allotted day.
I am presently discussing with counterparts in other parties a
proposal to reaffirm the powers of the Speaker to select for
debate amendments at report stage in a manner that is fair to
members and in the manner that it was intended when that
procedure was adopted. Subject to consultation, I hope to be
able to ask the House to consider this proposition some time next
week, possibly early next week.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I raise my question of privilege in response to a
letter dated February 16, 2001, from the member for
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot. This letter was
distributed to members and to all media. It came to my attention
yesterday, February 21.
I believe this question meets the criteria as described in
Standing Order 48, and Marleau and Montpetit, page 121.
1505
The member's letter contains information discussed in camera
among the members of the procedure and house affairs subcommittee
on private members' business. This, in and of itself, has been
found to constitute a prima facie matter of privilege, as noted
in Marleau and Montpetit, page 838 which states:
Divulging any part of the proceedings of an in camera
committee meeting has been ruled by the Speaker to constitute a
prima facie matter of privilege.
The member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot's Bill
C-234 was deemed non-votable by the committee, and he wrote in
his letter that the bill “was ruled non-votable by the
opposition members on the subcommittee for private members'
business”. He went on to say “crude partisanship has thus
deprived all MPs of a debate”. He also said “opposition MPs
have been complaining about the lack of opportunity of backbench
MPs and the relevance of parliament. Yet when given a chance to
do something about it, they failed to take it”.
I argue that the tone and content of the letter is inappropriate
and that he has divulged in camera details of a subcommittee to
other members and to the media. In doing so he has put both
myself and all my colleagues in an untenable position of being
unable to defend ourselves against such charges because to do so
would force us to divulge information from an in camera meeting,
which we will not do.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is a committee that works much
differently than the sometimes more partisan parliamentary
committees. I commend all my colleagues for their excellent work
on the subcommittee for private members' business. The member
for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot may not be aware
that the decisions as to which bills and motions are deemed
votable are reached through a consensus process with
representatives of all parties, including his own.
On the matter of privilege, Marleau and Montpetit, page 52
states:
—Members can only claim privilege insofar as any denial of their
rights, or threat made to them, would impede the functioning of
the House.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that my right to defend myself,
and for all members to defend themselves against such
accusations, have been denied by the member and his actions. His
actions have impeded my ability to fulfil my function as a member
on this committee.
Marleau and Montpetit point out “The unjust damaging of a
member's good name might also be seen as constituting an
obstruction”. In ruling on a question of privilege, Speaker
Fraser stated:
The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might
impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and
functions. It is obvious that the unjust damaging of a
reputation could constitute such an impediment.
I respectfully submit that the actions of the member for
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot have done just
that and brought unjust damage to the reputation of all members
of the subcommittee and, in fact, to the entire House of Commons.
Members who sat on the subcommittee have worked together and
given many hours of their time to hear submissions from their
colleagues from all parties. Which member in his or her right
mind would want to give of themselves for the benefit of their
colleagues knowing that they may be faced with indefensible
rebukes and the prospect of a damaged reputation from a colleague
they have sought to assist?
Should you, Mr. Speaker, find that this is a prima facie matter
of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as a member of the subcommittee on private members'
business, I too received a copy of the letter from the member for
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot.
I agree fully with the very pertinent remarks just made by my
colleague, the deputy whip of the Canadian Alliance Party. I
think that we should not, as parliamentarians, allow such
comments from a member whose bill was not selected to be
disseminated throughout the media, because this might put
additional pressure on the members of the subcommittee on private
members' business.
I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the House, because we
have an important bill, the act to amend the Canada Elections
Act, to study, but I would just like to point out, as the
Canadian Alliance deputy whip did earlier, the consensual nature
of the discussions that took place in this committee.
1510
In my opinion singling out or referring to members of the
opposition in two places in this letter is, first, an insult to
the members of the opposition but it is also an insult to the
government member who chairs that committee, and who placed a
heavy emphasis on the consensual character of these
deliberations, and on their non-partisan nature.
The strongest proof that the composition of this subcommittee is
not like other House committees is that the government is in the
minority; there is only one Liberal MP, the chair. The four
opposition parties are represented on it. This is a clear
illustration of this parliament's desire for, and custom and
tradition of, lending it a consensual and non-partisan character.
Therefore, I support what my colleague, the deputy whip of the
Canadian Alliance, has said.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I too spent the better part of two days on the
subcommittee on private members' business and I want to concur in what
the member for Dewdney—Alouette said. I do not want to repeat
all his arguments. I want to confirm that this was a decision
made by a consensus of all the committee members. There was no
partisan nature to it whatsoever.
As a matter of fact, in our case there were eight New Democrats
who presented motions to the committee and only one was chosen.
There were no government motions. There was no Conservative
motion. There were only two motions from the Alliance and four
from the Bloc. This just shows there was a consensus. This time
the Bloc had more motions chosen than anyone else. That was the
result of a consensus by all members.
I can testify, after having spent two afternoons there, that no
one on the committee was partisan in any sense, shape or form in
terms of the selections that we made.
I think this is a genuine question of privilege. What the
member across the way has done reflects on all of us who are on
that committee. It really impugns all of our reputations as
members of parliament who were trying to do a just and balanced
job.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am quite taken by surprise by this
question of privilege and I certainly take it very, very
seriously.
But let me begin in my own defence by saying that I only wish
that I did have some of the information that was discussed in
camera with respect to the private members' bills that were
deemed votable or not votable.
As you are very well aware, Mr. Speaker, one of the awkward
things about this subcommittee is it is dominated by the
opposition members. It deliberates in camera. A report is
tabled in the House and there is no opportunity at any time for
the members affected by whether their bill is chosen to be
votable or non-votable. There is no opportunity at anytime to
know the reason why the bill is deemed votable or not votable.
Now, if I may just go through my letter. I think I need to
defend myself. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will agree that I
have not said anything in my letter that besmirches the
reputations of my colleagues opposite, nor in any sense, shall we
say deviates from the information that I have fairly acquired.
First of all, the first paragraph said:
My Bill C-234 to amend the Supreme Court Act was ruled
non-votable by the opposition members on the sub-committee for
private members' business even though it met all the criteria for
votability.
I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to examine my bill versus the known
criteria for votability and you will find there is no argument.
It met every one of those criteria for votability.
As far as my knowing that the opposition members voted against
making my bill votable, I can assure the House that that arises
from the fact that I had and still have great confidence that
certainly the Liberal member on the subcommittee for private
members' business would not have argued against his own
colleague's bill. So by elimination, Mr. Speaker, it was very
clear that the opposition members, now by their own admission,
Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber, now the opposition members do admit
that they did speak against my bill.
The second paragraph said:
The bill would have required the Supreme Court to consider the
intent of parliament when considering Charter cases. It would
also have prevented the government from broadly applying
split-decisions like that of Marshall where the Micmac were given
an aboriginal right to the fishery.
1515
Mr. Speaker, you will agree that there is nothing contentious in
that, which merits a point of privilege. It is a mere statement
of the truth and a mere statement of what my bill would have
done.
I think the third paragraph may have caused a little bit of
awkwardness on the part of my colleagues opposite, where I say:
Crude partisanship has thus deprived all MPs of a debate on
judicial activism and judge-made Charter law that most of us have
been crying out for.
I submit, first and foremost that in this
place of all places, to accuse another member of being partisan
is one of the most normal things that could possibly occur here,
because indeed more often than not, particularly during question
period, we pride ourselves on being partisan.
Perhaps the adjective “crude” was a little offensive. But,
Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to the fact that when
items are selected for their votability, among the many items
that come before the subcommittee, is that they have the option
of selecting 10 items. In this instance they only selected
seven. They could have selected three Liberal items.
I point out that it was not only me that had an item before the
committee. The member for Davenport and the member for
Lac-Saint-Louis, both Liberal members, also had items before the
committee yet they were not chosen to be votable.
I can only conclude, as a member, that crude
partisanship must have taken effect because all three of these
Liberal items met all the criteria. If the people who were
deliberating on this wanted to reject other opposition bills,
that was perfectly fair. But I really do feel that there is no
point of privilege here. As I stated:
Opposition MPs have been
complaining about the lack of opportunity of backbench MPs and
the irrelevance of Parliament. Yet when given a chance to do
something about it, they failed to take it.
Mr. Speaker, I merely stated the truth.
The Speaker: We have had an extensive discussion on
the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for
Dewdney—Alouette. The Chair would like to thank all hon.
members who participated in this discussion for their
interventions.
It seems to me that at first glance it might appear that there
was some basis for objection when one reads the first paragraph
of the letter of the hon. member for
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, from which he quoted
extensively in the course of his remarks.
The Chair is of course very mindful of the privileges of the
House and anxious to ensure that they are properly upheld.
[Translation]
However, I must say that a few years ago I was a member of this
subcommittee and I took part in the discussions. The
subcommittee operated exactly as has been described today.
[English]
I know that it proceeded by consensus then. We always strove to
obtain that and avoid a vote. There was not a government
majority on the subcommittee at that time. It was one where
members worked together to choose the bills that were of interest
to members of the House and were chosen for that purpose. It
sounded to me, in the discussion today, as though the committee
is carrying on exactly as it had before.
The letter sent by the hon. member for
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot may have been somewhat
indelicate but, having said that, I do not think that it has
offended or breached the privileges of any hon. member. Some
have clearly found it offensive. I can understand why that might
be so, but partisanship is a fact of life in this Chamber. As
the hon. member has pointed out, we do have it from time to time.
Sometimes members make the mistake of sending partisan letters
here and there. This one appears to have gone everywhere. It is
one of those things that happens from time to time.
However, I think we have had an airing of the grievance. I
think it is a grievance. I do not believe it is a question of
privilege. Having had the airing, I believe we will let the
matter settle there.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1520
[English]
PETITIONS
POISON CONTROL
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would
like to present a petition that comes from a number of farmers
and ranchers.
Mr. Speaker, you will know those little creatures technically
called Richardson's ground squirrels. We call them gophers.
Farmers and ranchers can no longer get poison that will kill
them.
The petitioners ask that until Health Canada comes up with
something that can really kill these varmints, to reintroduce the
same formula of strychnine that they have had in the past.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved that Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada
Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the bill
entitled an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
We have to make changes to reflect the Ontario Court of Appeal
decision in Figueroa concerning the identification of political
party affiliation on the ballot.
I trust that all hon. members will acknowledge the importance of
re-examining certain provisions of the Canada Elections Act and that we
will support this process.
[English]
Allow me to explain the reasons we are counting on the support
of all hon. members for what I hope will be the expeditious
passage of the bill.
Late August of last year the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered
its decision in what has become known as the Figueroa case. In
his argument, Mr. Figueroa, representing the Communist Party of
Canada, challenged the constitutionality of the provisions of the
Canada Elections Act relating to the official registration of
political parties.
First, he argued that the requirements that a party nominate 50
candidates, which is the rule with which we are familiar, in
order to be an official party violated section 3 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Figueroa claimed that
because they were deprived of official recognition, certain
parties were not entitled to the same tax benefits as were
provided for other official parties and were accordingly placed
at a disadvantage in what he claimed to be a violation of
guarantees under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
On this point, the Ontario Court of Appeals affirmed that the
political parties play an important role in the electoral
process. The court stressed that any political party aspiring to
form a government or to play a significant role in the affairs of
the state must at least offer a large enough number of candidates
to allow for such a role. In other words, one person or two and
so on is not a political party.
The court also noted that the principle of effective
representation underlying section 3 of the charter is only given
expression when a political party assumes a significant level of
involvement.
In the court's view, the issue was therefore to determine a
reasonable number of candidates to meet the criteria for the
purpose of tax benefits, and a current limit of 50 appeared
reasonable in every respect. We agree with that point and that
provision will therefore remain unchanged. In other words, if
one cannot round up 50 candidates, one does not get the tax
benefits.
1525
At the same time Mr. Figueroa challenged the minimal requirement
of 50 candidates in order for the candidate's political
affiliation to be included with his or her name on the ballot.
This was ruled to be a separate and different point. Prior to
that most of us had assumed that to be the same threshold.
His reasoning on this issue was that the identification of each
candidate's political affiliation on the ballot made it easier
for voters to choose. The Ontario Court of Appeal took careful
note of Mr. Figueroa's statement in that regard.
[Translation]
For the moment, as I have said, the existing law does not
provide for the identification of candidates, except when they
belong to a duly registered political party. So, if the party
is not duly registered, it is not recorded on the ballot. That
means that they, here too, must run a minimum of 50 candidates
to have the party name appear with the candidate's name on the
ballot.
However, on this point, the Ontario court of appeal has
recognized that, in certain instances, political affiliation can
play a role in the choice of the electorate and that, therefore,
it must be indicated clearly on the ballot.
In addition, the court held that, while the criteria set for
official recognition of a political party are entirely
justifiable for the purposes of granting financial assistance,
this is not the case with the identification of the political
affiliation on the ballot.
In addition, the court noted, just the political identification
of a candidate on a ballot can cause the voter to choose one or
another candidate. This would be particularly relevant in the
case of two candidates from two different parties with the same
name.
Thus, for all these reasons, the court recognized that
candidates' identification and political affiliation on a ballot
are justified and important enough for political parties to have
greater access.
There again, we must have a minimum number of candidates to
reasonably talk about political parties without misleading
voters. It is critical that voters can make an educated choice.
That, of course, automatically rules out individual candidates.
In other words, a person is not a political party.
Our government is proposing to this House amendments that
reflect the ruling issued by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
In 1991, the Lortie commission proposed a minimum of 15
candidates for the name of a party to appear on the ballots.
There is of course no magical number. In this House, a party
must have a minimum of 12 elected members to be officially
recognized. Therefore, we are proposing to set the number at 12.
Twelve candidates could, in theory, when they are registered on
ballots, form a political party in the House of Commons.
Of course, in order to achieve that recognition, a party would
have to get 100% of its candidates elected, which is unlikely.
But still—
An hon. member: It is mathematically possible.
Hon. Don Boudria: It is mathematically possible, as the hon.
member opposite said. In fact, it almost happened to my political
party in Ontario. So, it is mathematically possible, and this is
why we are proposing it.
[English]
The number 12 is found in various functions of our parliamentary
system. It coincides, as I said a moment ago, with the number
required for recognition in the House. If a party does not have
12 members in the House, it is not a political party or no longer
a political party and so on. In this way small political parties
could be identified on the ballot.
We propose that henceforth the name of a political institution
comprising at least 12 candidates in an election be included
along with the name of those candidates on the ballot. This does
not give an automatic tax incentive for that group of people. In
that regard the threshold would remain at 50.
We must never lose sight of the fact that the Canada Elections
Act forms the very foundation of our democratic process. Its
primary purpose is one of access, in the absolute respect of our
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It must be open to Canadians to exercise their democratic right
to promote new ideas in parliament.
1530
Many of the modifications we made in the last parliament made it
possible for a large number of Canadians to vote where they would
have been prevented from doing so before. I am very proud of the
fact that the House in the last parliament sought to widen the
franchise as it did, allowing people who are out of the country
to vote and so on.
We must welcome with enthusiasm and generosity the emergence of
any political party capable of enriching and complementing our
society. Indeed, two of the five parties represented in the
House today did not even exist a decade ago, so obviously our
present system has permitted the emergence of new political
parties.
Since the new act entered into force in September 2000 its
implementation has revealed a few anomalies that need to be
rectified. I propose to do so at the same time with the bill.
The bill introduces amendments to the Canada Elections Act that
are of a more technical nature. Sometimes the amendments are
simply terminological changes to make English and French versions
consistent. At other times there was a reference to a committee
of the House when it should have referred to a committee of both
houses, and I am correcting that as well.
In conclusion, I indicate to all hon. members that it is my
intention in the future, following the presentation of the chief
electoral officer to the parliamentary committee, to listen to
the committee's advice and to propose substantive changes to the
Canada Elections Act where there is a consensus to do so. I
intend to do so quite openly, as I did in the last parliament, to
incorporate ideas from all sides of the House.
That will happen at a time in the future, once we have listened
to the report of the chief electoral officer and the important
contribution made by the parliamentary committee. I want the
House to know that I am quite open and quite willing to do that
when the time comes.
That is not before us today. What is before us today is merely
to respect the decision of the court to correct the law in a way
that makes it possible to recognize the court's decision, to
correct the legislation accordingly and to do so within the
timeframe the court has given to us. That is why I hope we will
pass the bill very quickly in the House.
At the same time I want to assure hon. members that this is not
the only change I propose to make to the Canada Elections Act in
this parliament. I am quite open to listening to the
constructive advice of all hon. members, after the chief
electoral officer appears before the committee, and to undertake
further changes as will have been deemed necessary.
Meanwhile I ask all parliamentarians in the House to support
these minor changes, changes which are important, because we have
been instructed by the court to take care of them. I believe the
changes we are undertaking today will improve the Canada
Elections Act. The changes we will undertake after the chief
electoral officer appears before the parliamentary committee, as
well as the recommendations of the committee which is chaired by
my own parliamentary secretary, will do so even more.
I thank hon. members for their co-operation in the matter. I
hope the bill will go to committee in a timely manner so that we
can respect fully the court's decision.
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. There have been all party consultations and I request
that you seek unanimous consent to allow our first speaker on
Bill C-9, the member for Lanark—Carleton, to split his time with
the member for Edmonton North.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed as suggested
by the hon. member for Athabasca?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, as my hon. friend just noted, I will be dividing my time
with the beautiful hon. member for Edmonton North.
1535
Tony Blair's speech today reminded us of the link between
Britain and Canada. To listen to our Prime Minister one might
have been forgiven for thinking that the chief link between
Canada and Britain was that it was our number two investor, as if
this place were not named after the House of Commons at
Westminster, as if Canada and Britain did not share a head of
state in Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, and as if we had not based
our own constitution upon that of the United Kingdom.
The preamble to the British North America Act, our constitution,
reads as follows:
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One
Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of
the United Kingdom:
This then went on and dealt with substantive items.
The idea at the time was that we would benefit as Canadians from
the liberties and ancient freedoms that Englishmen had enjoyed
and that the unwritten British constitution guaranteed.
In 1868 the classic statement of those liberties was given in
Walter Bagehot's famous book The English Constitution, a
classic which is still read today by those who seek to understand
both the British constitution and the unwritten aspects of our
own constitution, many of which are still in place today.
Walter Bagehot stated something very interesting, which is of
relevance to the debate today, on the legislation before the
House. He stated that the United Kingdom, although nominally a
kingdom, was not a tyranny like the monarchies of the European
continent but rather that it was, in hidden or veiled form, a
republic. He meant that it was a country with a mixed system of
government; that is to say, with a monarch, with an aristocratic
element in the form of the House of Lords and with a democratic
element in the form of the House of Commons.
That was the ideal represented by Great Britain at the time. It
was also the ideal that we had hoped to gel in Canada when we
created our constitution. We wanted to set as our principle the
goal of being, as much as we could be, a mirror image and a
transcript of that country which was the freest country in all
the world and a model for all the world. That was the ideal our
laws were meant to represent up to the present day.
Sadly, Bill C-9 does not reflect any of that. It reflects
instead our degraded constitutional status. I am speaking of the
unwritten constitution in which the Queen and the Governor
General are no longer permitted to bear the true pomp and dignity
of their office. Much of that role has been taken over by an
increasingly self-important and pompous prime ministerial office.
The Senate is no longer the natural aristocracy it was meant to
be but has become a body full of appointed political hacks.
Unfortunately, and the greatest tragedy of all, the Commons, the
democratic wing of government, is no longer a parliamentary body
but an electoral college in perpetual session whose role is to
perpetually reaffirm the status of the Prime Minister as the
elected monarch of the country. Canada is an elected monarchy
today, and this is a great degradation from the original model
that was set up and understood by the Fathers of Confederation.
The lone remaining aspect of our original republican
constitution, republican in the original form, is the electoral
process that takes place and allows this electoral college to be
elected every four or five years or, in the case of this
government, every three and a half years. That part of our
constitution does still function somewhat.
However, I am afraid to say that a series of initiatives,
culminating in this pernicious bill, seek to deprive us of the
full measure of freedom our electoral system is meant to
guarantee. The bill does this, regrettably, by depriving small
parties of the full right to participate in elections on the same
terms as major parties, such as the Liberal Party, my own party
and all the parties represented in the House. It also deprives
independent candidates of that equivalent right.
1540
It is simply something that has no place in a democratic
society, or in a society that seeks to be democratic and in which
the people of the country seek to have at least a democratic
element in their constitution.
It does this in the following manner. It seeks to do so by
being part of a concerted strategy of squeezing the freedom out
of free elections. We see the government taking action over and
over again to put restrictions on third party advertising as its
laws are struck down by the courts.
Laws are passed restricting third party advertising. They are
taken to court, struck down, re-enacted with minor variations and
will be struck down again. In the meantime third party
advertising cannot take place. That is something of which we
should all be ashamed.
In another matter related to the bill we saw the federal
government's failure in June 1995 to permit the mandated review
by law of the referendum act. We now see restrictions being
placed on the rights of minor parties to participate on an
equivalent or equal footing with the larger parties in federal
elections.
I want to give a bit of historical background to explain exactly
how the present situation has evolved. In May 1993 the previous
Progressive Conservative government with all party support,
except for the support of the hon. member for Beaver River who is
now the member for Edmonton North, passed a law stating that any
party which failed to field 50 candidates in a federal election
would have its assets confiscated. There would be a process by
which the assets would be sold off. Its debts would be cleared
and any remaining money would be turned over to the Receiver
General for Canada or, more correctly, to the chief electoral
officer.
As a result of the law being passed and the fact that the
Communist Party of Canada failed to field 50 candidates in the
1993 election, the Communist Party of Canada was ordered to close
up shop in the manner prescribed by the law. The Communist Party
did so, but the leader of the Communist Party, Mr. Miguel
Figueroa, took the electoral law to court and argued that the 50
candidate rule was unconstitutional.
It took a long time for him to work his way through the court
system, but in a ruling on March 10, 1999, Madam Justice Anne
Marie Malloy of the Ontario Court, General Division, ruled that
the Canada Elections Act violated the charter of rights in a
number of important ways and that therefore substantial chunks of
the law would be struck down.
I will quote from Madam Justice Malloy's decision in order to
make the point. She wrote the following:
Only parties which nominate at least 50 candidates in a federal
election are entitled to be registered under the Act. This
provision violates s. 3 of the Charter because it provides an
advantage to candidates of larger parties while denying it to
others—Further, the fifty-candidate threshold is not rationally
connected to stated objectives of ensuring that only “serious”
parties or parties with a broad base of support be entitled to
register—There is a rational basis for restricting registration
to parties which have at least two candidates as the act of
running a slate of candidates under one party banner is the
hallmark of a political party.
That is to distinguish parties from independents.
The appropriate remedy is to read into the relevant provisions
the requirement of at least two candidates for registered status,
rather than the current 50-candidate threshold.
She continued to say that the defendant, the government,
conceded that the provision that only candidates of registered
parties are entitled to have their party affiliation appear on
the ballot infringes on freedom of expression contrary to
subsection 2(b) of the charter. The government itself admitted
that. She continued:
It also infringes the s. 3 rights of those candidates because the
use of a party identifier is a benefit which should not be
extended to any candidates if it is not extended on an equal
basis to all.
1545
She went on to say the following. The provision for automatic
deletion from the register of a party which fails to nominate at
least 50 candidates in any federal election, the effect of which
is that the party is required to sell all of its assets, pay its
debts and remit any positive balance to the government, has a
devastating financial effect on political parties, as well as on
voters, and limits the ability of a party to continue its support
of its candidate. It violates the section 3 rights of both.
Since the supporters of the party are less able in association
with each other through their chosen party to express their
political views to the public, the provision also infringes their
right to freedom of expression and freedom of association
contrary to sections 2(b) and 2(d) of the charter.
During this part of the speech, the minister has been offering
some commentary about how parts of this decision were overruled
by the Ontario court of appeal. He is quite correct as to the
facts; there was some overruling of some parts of the bill. What
he does not mention is that the court of appeal's ruling is
itself at this point being appealed by Mr. Figueroa and we do not
yet know whether those parts will be reinstated.
It would be my interpretation that in fact Madam Justice
Malloy's interpretation was correct and the government lawyers
were in fact quite unreasonable in their understanding of the
relevant parts of the constitution.
In dealing with responding to the court's ruling, the court of
appeal instructed the government to produce legislation to deal
with the unconstitutionality of parts of the law within six
months. It in fact complied, shy one day of six months, by
producing this law, Bill C-9, which gives the narrowest
conceivable interpretation to the court's decision and to the
rights protected by the court.
As well, the government appears to have put in a number of very
vindictive provisions designed to ensure that small parties—not
its party, not my party, not the Bloc Quebecois or the NDP or the
Progressive Conservatives, but small parties and
independents—will not have access to certain rights that are or
should be extended to all parties on an equal footing.
I am thinking here of allowing the issuance of tax receipts
between elections. I am thinking here of the right to a final
voters list as opposed to merely a preliminary voters list, and
that is a significant factor for a party contesting an election,
for example, in my own riding, which is growing rapidly and where
the preliminary voters list has unfortunately a very limited
correspondence to reality by the time of an election.
I should also mention that free time political advertising is
restricted for these small parties.
The government has reinstated, as best it can, the
unconstitutional 50 candidate rule, which will of course be
struck down on appeal eventually after a number of years go by,
at great expense to these small parties and these private
citizens. It will accomplish that temporarily. It will deprive
these parties of their rights to freely contest elections. It
will deprive people who want to get together in smaller
groupings, for whatever reason, or who do not have the resources
to create large groupings, such as the communists and some of the
other small parties, some of whom contested the election in my
riding against me.
I may not agree with them ideologically, but I think they have
the right to run against me. If they can convince the voters
that they are better representatives of voter interests than I
am, that is fair. I should not have an extra advantage. I
certainly do not think that the 172 or 173 members on that side
of the House, whatever the number is, should have any extra
advantage over these small parties either.
If I had been told that one day I would be making common cause
with the communists against Her Majesty's government, I do not
think I would have believed it, but here we are. Today I am
making common cause with members of all small parties in defence
of an equal, equitable playing field, of fairness for all
independents and for all people who wish to contest elections,
and in defence of our constitutional rights.
1550
I have only a paraphrase here, but Voltaire, speaking to someone
with whom he disagreed profoundly, said “I disagree with
everything you say but I would defend to the death your right to
say it”.
However, the government and this minister unfortunately seem to
be saying something that is just about the opposite. It is
saying it might actually agree with what one is saying, maybe
even with most of it, but it will happily violate the
constitution in any way it can think of in order to restrict
one's right to say it. That is a shame. It should be stopped.
I will be opposing the bill. I encourage all members of all
parties, including those who enjoy the benefits of this law, to
fight against it and to ensure that it does not go through.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I apologize to the House for failing to give credit to
the Alliance member for North Vancouver for producing the number
of 12 MPs which I proposed today.
The Speaker: I am not sure that sounds quite like a point
of order.
Mr. Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It is my understanding that the member for North Vancouver did
not in fact introduce the 50 number that is being used for all
important rights under this law.
The Speaker: I think it is apparent that we seem to be in
an argument rather than on a point of order, interesting as it
may be. These are not uncommon in the Chamber.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, let me just say that a dozen is certainly a good, round
number. I know that my colleague from North Vancouver proposed
that, and in fact the government listened. The government House
leader just said that it could have been 15, it could have been
12, but I see that he took the expert and wonderful advice of one
of my colleagues, my colleague from North Vancouver.
I would like to talk for a few minutes today about this
particular bill. I am amazed, I suppose, but I probably should
not be. The fact that this went to court and had to get resolved
there is what forced the government to act. It just seems kind
of pathetic. Surely if something is worthwhile changing, it is,
and dear knows there were more things in the Canada Elections Act
that the government could have changed other than this one thing,
but the government always seems to be spurred on by a court
decision. Everything is reactive in this government. It does
not just think something is a wonderful idea and go ahead with
it. The courts act in such and such a way and that triggers a
reaction to something that the government needs to react to.
Bill C-9 wants to amend the Canada Elections Act. My colleague
for Lanark—Carleton has talked about the numbers and how it is a
consistent thing anyway.
When we look at the number of people that we need in the House
for a party to be registered or acknowledged or recognized as an
official party, I know something about it, as you know, Mr.
Speaker. I sat here certainly as a proud member of a political
party and with much machinery around the country, but I was
treated as an independent here in the House of Commons. I know
you were certainly kind to me and I do appreciate that. You did
know the rules and regulations, as has obviously now been proven.
You are sitting in the big chair, as it were. You provided me
with a great deal of help. I remember Speaker John Fraser was
very kind to me too because he said that after all I had won an
election fairly and squarely.
So I have a vested interest certainly in speaking out on behalf
of those who belong to smaller political parties. In fact, I
remember that when the Reform Party fielded its first candidates
in the 1988 election several of us ran. I think we fielded
candidates in 72 out of the 88 western ridings. However, until
we of course got to that magic number of 50, everyone was
concerned because we were not able to act as if we were a full
blown political party. I remember that there was great
excitement when we got to that number and were able to say that
we really could be recognized.
It seems passing strange to me that a government would react.
That seems to be the substance of the government: only when
pushed into something does it act.
However, let us look at some of the issues. Even though a party
may field 12 candidates and be a registered party, is it
registered? Not really. We could talk about it, but in fact it
is just deemed to be a political party, not a registered party.
If we look at the House of Commons now and at the precedent which
has been set for some time that we need to have 12 members to be
recognized, I would have loved to have had that changed when I
was sitting as an “independent” member here, but the rules and
the traditions were that a party needed a dozen members.
When we look at this law, we see that it moves to a dozen, which
is a good first step, but the party is still not a “registered”
political party. That means it cannot use all the tools that are
available. It just seems most unfortunate.
Even though they have 12 candidates they are not able to obtain a
final list of electors.
1555
It has not even been three months since we have come into the
new parliament. The election was less than three months ago and
when I look around at what all of us went through in the election
campaign, I would like to tell the House a couple of tales from
the trail.
This was in Edmonton North specifically, but I know that this
happened not just there. In fact, when I think about this final
list of electors, whereby we have gone to a permanent
enumeration, what a nightmare that is for areas of the country
such as the constituency I represent in Edmonton North, where
there are new houses being built daily. Every time I go out door
knocking there is an entire new subdivision there. I am not sure
if it is the same in Kingston and the Islands, but I know things
are hot in Edmonton North.
Our returning officer is Phyllis Basaraba, for whom I have an
incredible amount of respect. I appreciated so much the work she
did. However, she was not given the tools. We went into the
Elections Canada office which she was trying like crazy to get up
and running because the election came so quickly. My campaign
team was going out into new areas of Bellerive and new housing
developments which were being built so quickly, and they were
drawing maps. Elections Canada had no idea of these new places.
My guys were out door knocking and were drawing physical maps of
where houses were and where lakes were. We would then take these
maps over to the returning office and say “Guess what? There are
836 houses in this district”. They would say that they had
absolutely no idea of these people on the electors list.
Something is wrong there. It is not just the smaller political
parties that would not have access to final voters lists. Surely
we need to get proper lists in place. That is a real deficiency
I see in the Canada Elections Act and is surely something the
government could have and should have come up with. Maybe it
would have come up with it if it had been taken to court about
it, but it always has to be reactive instead of proactive. This
was something from this last election that was very difficult.
Obtaining free broadcast time is another difficulty. Having
represented a smaller political party in days gone by, I know
that there is always that battle about free advertising time in
political broadcasting, which is certainly something that people
should have the advantage of.
Also, there is the whole idea of issuing tax receipts to donors.
Again, a legitimate party should be able to issue tax receipts at
any time of year, not just during a writ period.
Mr. Speaker, someone whom you know and remember well, Elwin
Hermanson, has left this place and is the leader of the
Saskatchewan Party now. In fact, he is the leader of Her
Majesty's official opposition in Saskatchewan. You certainly
know him and remember him well. He is a fellow who did a
tremendous job in the House. There he is out in Saskatchewan
now.
I know this may be provincial—it could be federal—but the
bottom line is that his party was not able to issue tax receipts
to anyone at any time, even during the writ. When those people
ran in the last election about a year and a half ago, there were
people of goodwill saying “Here is a hundred bucks because I
believe in the cause”. I thought not being able to issue tax
receipts at all was just scandalous. If these people are going
to operate as a legitimate political party, they certainly should
have the right to be able to get those tax receipts issued.
Of course the NDP in Saskatchewan, I am reminded, had a federal
wing or cousin, if you will, so it was able to swap receipts back
and forth or be registered as a provincial party under the
federal one. Of course there was no corollary to the
Saskatchewan Party at the federal level.
This seems ludicrous to me. Of course as we know the
Saskatchewan Party gave the NDP a good run for its money, even
without tax receipts, and Elwin is coming very close to being the
premier of Saskatchewan. Dear only knows what will happen during
the next election.
When I look at some of those things I think there really are
some fundamental injustices. I am not going to leap to the
defence of the Communist Party either, but if we do really
believe in free speech we ought to believe in free speech when it
is good for us and when it is not so good for us.
I certainly am not JoJo the psychic, but I do know that there is
going to be court challenge. I will bet a loonie that these
smaller political parties will win, because Figueroa did it and
someone else is going to do it next. If it is not the Communist
Party, it will be some other party.
Let me talk just for a moment again about the reimbursement of
election expenses that was provided for under Bill C-2, which was
a major revision of the Canada Elections Act. The government is
making some small and tinkering amendments to it.
1600
Here is one that maybe they should have paid a whole lot more
attention to. Under this provision, only registered parties,
those parties that run more than 50 candidates, or now more than
12, will be reimbursed for election expenses providing they
obtain either 2% of the national vote or 5% of the aggregate vote
in their riding in which they endorse candidates.
Although my party opposes election rebates, we do not believe it
is fair that only registered parties should be able to do that. I
agree with my colleague, who said it so well, if people are going
to vote for those candidates they have every right to do that
whether I agree with them or not. I do not think it is fair to
punish people by not allowing them to be reimbursed for their
election expenses.
When we talk about registered parties versus political parties,
those parties that will not be able to get the benefits of full
registered parties, I certainly think that sounds like two tier
democracy. We all know this government hates to be thought of as
endorsing two tier anything but we see proof of it all the time.
If we look at health care, it is just amazing that the
government stands up and says that it is the champion and the
saviour of universal health care. It is not universal. Many
times across the country we see that diversity and a real serious
problem with a government that says one thing and of course does
another.
HRD grants, immigrant investor loans or something in the
industry department are other examples where we see that there
really is a two tier system alive and well with this government,
and that is unfortunate.
Again today we see evidence that the government believes in two
tier democracy. Obviously for members of the government, which
has a majority and did fairly well in the last few elections,
they are able to stand up and say that they are tier one. They
get all the lists, the free broadcast time and the reimbursement
of their election expenses. They can tell us that they are sorry
for us folks but that we do not get reimbursed. That is two
tier.
If we talk about democracy and the right to free speech, then it
seems to me that it should be absolutely equivalent for
everybody. Let the voters decide that, not the government.
It is important to make sure that the government is really
concerned about this issue. It has to be proactive not just
reactive, and not take the position that it knows best.
As the House knows, a party can be in government for a while,
perhaps a little too long for some of us, but nonetheless, sooner
or later it will be in opposition again. That is just as sure as
God made little green apples. However, when a party is in
government it is such an easy thing to assume that it knows
everything, that it has all the answers and that it really does
believe in fairness, but it then brings in legislation like this.
It is a good little start but there are so many other things it
could have done.
What could we do to the Canada Elections Act to make it better?
How about enumeration? A little earlier in my remarks I talked
about the fact that enumeration was just unbelievable. The
returning officers across the country were about ready to tear
their hair out during the last election.
First, we have a shorter writ period. When I think about the
last election it amazes me how so many things happened and there
were such frustrations regarding the enumeration. The whole idea
of registered political parties is amazing.
Let me talk about advance voting. I would like to comment for
just a few moments on some of the advanced polling horror
stories. I have more tales from the trail.
I called into the 1-800 vote number. It took me some time
because it seemed to me that no one was ever available there. In
the last election I sent people directly to my returning office.
That was far more successful and they got tremendous answers. Of
course they could get through on the lines or else just drop in
to the Northtown Mall where Phyllis Basaraba and her really good
crew of people were working.
However, when I phoned the 1-800 number it was like phoning
someone on a teenage line. It was almost impossible to get
through. When I did get through, this is what happened. I said
to the person on the line that my name was Deborah Grey and that
I was calling from Edmonton North—Deborah being my first name,
which is not exactly unrecognizable as a woman's name—and I was
told not once but twice “Just a moment, sir.”
This was Elections Canada talking to me, a candidate but also a
member of parliament. I said my name was Deborah, not Chris,
Terry, Pat or something like that. I said that it was Deborah
Grey calling and I was told “Okay, Sir, I'll be right with
you”. This made me nervous right off the bat, as one could
guess, and I did not, I must confess, have 100% faith in the
system as it were.
1605
Well it went from bad to worse because the person asked me what
riding I was calling from. I told the person I was calling from
Edmonton North. I thought that was pretty simple and
straightforward. The person then asked me what province I was
in. This was a person from Elections Canada. This was the
1-800-VOTE where answers were to be given to all our problems.
Susie Voter could phone in and ask these questions, not that I
deserve special treatment, but I was the MP, the candidate
phoning in and I was being asked what province Edmonton North was
in.
If there is any way that is defensible, I would be really happy
to hear it. To me this seems inexcusable from people who are
supposed to have the answers. I recall saying that Edmonton is a
little town out west and the capital of Alberta.
If I had still been in Beaver River, I could buy that they would
have a difficult time because who knows where Beaver River is.
Those of us who live in the area certainly know, but I could
understand somebody at the other end of the country not having a
sweet clue frankly of where Beaver River is, but Edmonton North
is a bit of a hint that it could be the capital city of Alberta.
Holy smokes, there are just unbelievable problems in the system.
It is no wonder Canadians get frustrated with the whole idea of
whether the electoral system works or whether parliament works
when the 1-800 number does not even work. How do we run the
country?
There is something else I found difficult under the Canada
Elections Act, particularly with the changes that were made under
Bill C-2, and something I think the government should be
addressing in Bill C-9. If it is going to address amendments to
the Canada Elections Act under Bill C-9 then it should do it, do
it once and do it right.
We have the Canadian citizenship idea where someone could ask a
person if he or she is a Canadian citizen. Someone could
respond by saying yes but we would not be able to ask for proof.
I just spent a couple of nice weeks in Mexico with my husband.
When I was asked if I was a Canadian citizen I said, yes, but the
authorities were not terribly impressed with my charming spirit
and smile, and the fact that I had said yes, so they asked for my
passport. They wanted proof and they had every right to ask for
proof. I had my passport and I showed it to them. I knew I was
a Canadian citizen. I knew I had proof and I was happy to
provide it. However, here in Canada we are not allowed to do
that.
If any substantive changes were going to be made to the Canada
Elections Act that proof of citizenship should have been one of
them for sure. I certainly think that it was high time for that
but there is absolutely nothing in here. I have flipped
through all these pages and it is just amazing.
When we look at the whole idea of democracy and the frustration
of people we see that they really are kind of tired of voting.
They do not think it will make a whole lot of difference anyway.
I find it sad that we had the lowest voter turnout in a great
while. Something has to stimulate the excitement of the Canadian
public for them to believe that it really does matter that they
participate in democracy. It is unfortunate when we see that
democracy itself is pretty unhealthy right now with low voter
turnout.
The chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, says that
maybe we should have mandatory voting. I do not know if that it
is the answer, although I do appreciate that people are at least
asking the questions about what we can do to make sure that this
place becomes a hair more relevant in people's lives, other than
just in their chequebooks, pocketbooks and pay stubs. I really
do think we need to make some serious changes in terms of making
sure that democracy works better.
On page 83 of his book, Straight from the Heart, which was
written in 1985, the Prime Minister, when he was treasury board
president, said that in order to keep control the government made
a lot of political judgments by itself and many decisions were
reached in conversations in the corridors of parliament. He also
wrote that he did not permit a lot of questions and that the
system gave him a lot of clout. Is that not something to brag
about, eh?
That is not democracy, that is pathetic. He went on to say on
page 43 that in his judgment maybe no more than 50 MPs make a
personal difference in the outcome of their elections. He also
said that the rest tended to rely on the appeal of their leader
and the luck of belonging to the winning party. He then said
that the risk was that MPs would become more marginal, more
expendable and at the mercy of the leadership.
1610
He continues in the book to say that certainly fewer backbenchers
will be prepared to give their leaders frank advice or tell them
to go to hell if they know when they can be replaced. That was
written by our present Prime Minister in 1985.
Just a couple of weeks ago in China the Prime Minister said
“Ah, all the terra cotta statues. It is something like being
home with my backbenchers”. Is this something to brag about
democracy? I hardly think so.
Being from the west I just could not let my speech wind down
without this statement regarding the west which is on page 159 of
the Prime Minister's book. He said that the lack of political
representation was a problem, a vicious circle that we did not
know how to break. He said that the less the west was
represented the more alienated it felt, and the more alienated it
felt the less it chose to vote Liberal and the less it was
represented. There it is. Is the be all and end all to get
seats in parliament to say one is in power for the sake of being
in power? No.
Let us aim to be in power so that we can really make a
difference, that we can have a vision for moving forward and that
this place, parliament itself, becomes a little more relevant to
people right across Canada. Canadians should be able to say that
they voted and that they made a difference because Canada will be
a better place.
When I see the timid changes that the government is attempting,
I say that we have to go for it. Fix it once, fix it right and let us
make sure that the Canada Elections Act does become a whole lot
more relevant to all of us.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, in the same spirit of co-operation we
showed our Canadian Alliance colleagues, I ask for the unanimous
consent of the House to split my time with the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Verchères—Les-Patriotes have unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part
in the debate on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada Elections
Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
To begin with, we will be supporting this legislation. We will
be doing so because it is consistent with the Figueroa decision
handed down in Ontario. It ensures that we conform to the spirit
of this decision. I will say, however, that we are not happy to
be giving the bill our support, and I will explain why.
First of all, when one looks at the actual bill and reads it, it
is clear that it is very brief. It contains only a few clauses.
At first blush, it might appear that this is really a relatively
minor or superficial bill. It is true that, in terms of content,
it is brief. It will not go down in history for its length.
While the bill may seem fairly minor and innocuous, what is
troubling to say the least is the government's attitude.
1615
I believe that, by its very nature and by its very content, this
bill reflects the arrogant and cynical attitude of this
government, which feels that it embodies truth and innate
knowledge.
We have before us today a bill which is evidence of all the
haste with which the Elections Act reform was carried out during
the last parliament. We proceeded precipitously. And why did
we? Because the government waited until halfway through its
mandate to bring in the amendments it intended to make to the
Elections Act. The government was planning, anticipating, a rush
election. It wanted to move as quickly as possible to pass new
legislation, so that the chief electoral officer would have the
time—we are talking six months or so—to implement the
provisions of the new legislation before the election was called.
The fact is that, indeed, the provisions of the election
legislation rushed through in 1999-2000, if I am not mistaken,
took effect at the very beginning of September 2000, so the
government was in a position to call a snap election.
Speaking of haste, this bill is an illustration, a proof of the
haste with which the government moved during the last parliament
in order to get the Elections Act changed, with its bill number
2, Bill C-2.
First, Bill C-9, which is before the House today, contains
provisions intended to ensure linguistic concordance, since it
appears that the Elections Act, under which the most recent
federal elections were held, contained linguistic concordance
problems. In other words, some provisions did not say exactly
the same thing in English and in French.
Had the government taken the time to properly study Bill C-2 and
not rushed it through, perhaps we would have had the time to
catch these little language errors and prevent them from having
any effect during an election campaign on the interpretation of
the law.
Happily—of course the matter is not over yet—it appears that the
problems of interpretation in linguistic terms did not cause any
catastrophes in the last election.
I will give an example. In the bill before us, clauses 18
and 19 are two provisions intended to bring the French text into
line with the original English text with respect to the rules
governing the allocation of free broadcasting time and the
purchase of air time during the election campaign. The period
during which air time is available to the political parties and
candidates is defined as the period between the time the
election was called and polling day.
In French, the text reads “jusqu'à minuit le jour du scrutin”.
On closer examination of the English, we find “At midnight on
the day before polling day”. They just forgot to say “À minuit,
la veille du jour du scrutin”. That makes a fair difference.
It is not a minor error. It is a detail, which could have made
all the difference during the latest election campaign, in some
ridings, even across Canada.
Here is another example. Clause 4 of Bill C-9 talks of the
provisions concerning information to be contained in the
register of electors.
1620
It states that it shall contain:
—any other information that is provided under subsections 49(2),
194(7), 195(7), 223(2), 233(2) and 251(3).
It was simply not noticed that, in Bill C-2, the reference was
to subsection 195(7) and not, as it was passed in the last
parliament, to subsection 195(3). The wrong subsection was
amended. The reference is to the wrong subsection. This is
another example of haste and sloppy work.
Another example is when the bill refers to generally accepted
accounting principles, concepts that the Bloc Quebecois
incorporated in Bill C-2, by the way.
As for the generally accepted accounting principles in clause
21, the government simply forgot to include these provisions in
subparagraphs 403(b)(i) and (ii). Could this have made a
difference? Of course it could have. This is another example
of how Bill C-2 was rushed through, without the time being taken
to do a proper job.
Why? Simply to satisfy the partisan goals of the government.
This is completely and utterly unacceptable.
I was talking about party politics.
Is there anything more vital to democracy than an electoral
bill? It seems to me that such a bill must be acceptable to
most if not all political parties taking part in the process.
Everyone must agree with the process if it is to be accepted by
civil society in general.
But, as I said earlier, in the reform of the Canada Elections
Act during the last parliament, the government's approach was to
brazenly put party politics and its political interests ahead of
seeking a consensus with opposition parties.
We have seen this in several regards. The government's reform
of the Canada Elections Act is essentially cosmetic and
superficial. Naturally, it has been amended to be more readable
and logical.
Of course, some changes were made to comply with previous
rulings.
This reminds me of the comment made earlier by the hon. member
for Edmonton North, who said that this government is much more
reactive than proactive. It is true. We proposed all sorts of
ideas during the review of Bill C-2 to amend the Elections Act,
so as to make it better for our fellow citizens and so that it
would reflect more democratic and modern electoral procedures.
But, as I just said, the government decided instead to make only
some minor cosmetic changes.
Bill C-2 was not the result of a consensus. It was rammed down
our throat by the government. Yet, when he launched the
consultation process, the government House leader, the minister
responsible for Canada's electoral reform, had said “I want to
ensure that we can co-operate with federal political parties—as
has traditionally been the case in Canada—so that this bill will
reflect a consensus”. Which consensus did this bill reflect?
None. The government alone voted in favour of Bill C-2.
1625
I would even go further. The government was so determined to ram
this bill through and muzzle the opposition that it went so far
as to see that, at third reading, only the government's
spokesperson and one representative of the official opposition
were allowed to speak to the bill.
Is there anything more despicable than to see the cornerstone of
democracy, the elections act of a country, debated at third
reading in the House, at the final stage, by only two political
parties out of the five represented here in parliament?
The government's behaviour during consideration of Bill C-2 was
absolutely outrageous.
The government pushed that bill through so fast that it had to
come back to the House and say “Well, there are some minor
changes we need to do, typos we need to correct. Would you be
kind enough to let us correct these mistakes?”
The government is using the Figueroa ruling, which basically
compels us to amend the elections act, to introduce a whole
series of tiny minor changes, without of course embarking on an
in depth reform of the legislation.
The government is saying “The system has served us well, let it
be. We have been re-elected three times under the current
election system, with three great majorities, do not change a
thing”.
Is this not the party led by the same man who promised, as
Leader of the Opposition, that the first thing he would do as
Prime Minister would be to include proportional representation
into the system?
Well, he was elected and all he had managed to do by the end of
his second term was to introduce some slight cosmetic changes to
the Canadian election system, because the system has served him
well and has worked to his advantage. The government is far from
willing to propose any significant amendments to the current
election legislation.
Let me briefly go over some of the provisions found in this bill.
Among others, the bill amends the Canada Elections Act to give a
greater role to the Senate. Previously, if he wanted to carry
out a pilot project, for example to test an electronic voting
process, the chief electoral officer had to obtain, under Bill
C-2, the approval of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs, that deals with electoral matters.
Believe it or not, under Bill C-9, the one before us today, not
only will the approval of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs be required, but also the approval of the
Senate committee that normally considers electoral matters. It
takes some nerve to give to a committee made up of unelected
parliamentarians the power to say to the Cyou chief electoral
officer, “No, you cannot carry out a study on a new way for
people to exercise their right to vote in an election”, or “Yes,
you can go ahead, under this or that condition”.
Is it not ironic to call upon a committee made up of unelected
parliamentarians to debate the Canada Elections Act, which
concerns each and everyone of us as representatives of our
constituents? This is somewhat embarrassing.
The main purpose of Bill C-9 is to enable a political party that
has at least 12 candidates to have its name listed on the
ballots along with the name of its candidates.
Members will remember that the number of candidates required
used to be 50. This bill would reduce the number to 12.
Obviously the Figueroa decision does not specify the number of
candidates that would be acceptable in constitutional terms.
1630
So the government proposed the number 12. The rational argument, the
logic behind this government proposal, is this. It takes 12 MPs
in the House for a party to become a recognized political party.
Let us use the same figure for recognition of a political party
on the ballot, even if the number of 50 candidates on a slate
is still valid for the party to be able to take advantage of the
tax benefits offered by the Government of Canada. That said,
from now on, the number of candidates required before the party
name would be given on the ballot would be 12.
Hon. members might well ask “Why 12? Why not two, five, or
ten?” The government, of course, says “Yes, but a rational
argument is required, and the rational argument is the rule
whereby it takes 12 members in the House for a party to become a
recognized political party”.
During the briefing session, a most interesting point was raised
by a colleague from the Canadian Alliance. He asked “And what
if Prince Edward Island wanted to try an experiment like the
Bloc Quebecois did?” There are only six ridings on P.E.I., so how
could one imagine the Bloc P.E.I. on the ballet? It would not be
possible with only six ridings.
I imagine that this will give rise to a lot of debate on the
matter, but I find it unfortunate that the government did not
want to take advantage of the work done on the previous bill,
Bill C-2, or of consideration of this one, Bill C-9, in order to
make more substantial amendments to the Elections Act.
On Tuesday, we debated the possibility of striking a special
all-party committee to examine the merits of various models of
proportional representation and other electoral reforms. The
government clearly indicated its lack of interest.
Let us not be surprised afterward when the people of Quebec and
of Canada show even less interest in federal politics, having
seen the lack of interest the government has in bringing in any
reform whatsoever.
Let us not be surprised that the voter turnout is constantly
dropping, constantly waning, election after election, when we
have a government with such a closed mind and such arrogance
toward the public.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in turn to speak to Bill C-9 introduced by
the government House leader and entitled an act to amend the
Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment
Act.
As my colleague, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, pointed
out so well and to avoid being redundant, I will try to raise
new points regarding our disappointment following the
introduction of this bill.
For the benefit of our viewers and our colleagues in the House,
I would simply point out that the Elections Act has to be
changed as the result of a decision by the Ontario court of
appeal regarding the identification of political parties on the
ballots, known as the Figueroa case.
In the past, a party had to run 50 candidates in a general
election in order to be recognized and, therefore, to have its
name appear on the ballot.
The Ontario court of appeal and the legislation before us
reduces this number to 12 candidates, which apparently has a
direct link with the rule of law used by the Ontario court of
appeal. This rule provides that, in order to be recognized in
the House, a party must have 12 members there, the figure 12
being an acceptable measure in our system.
1635
That having been said, our disappointment has to do with the
fact that nothing in this bill addresses certain points that the
Bloc Quebecois members consider essential.
I will try to rise above party politics by saying that I am sure
that the issues that I will be raising during the time allotted
to me were a problem for members of all five parties in the House during
the election held on November 27, 2000.
That is why I think that the government should have taken
advantage of this bill, which amends the Canada Elections Act, to
introduce improvements in the electoral process.
When people get out to vote, they are doing nothing more or less
than practising democracy. I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that the
inhabitants of the lovely Cornwall area and of your riding are
capable of expressing an opinion on an MP. That is the purpose
of an election.
The purpose of an election is to say “Do we agree with the
person who has been representing us for the past few years? Do
we agree with the person seeking the right to run for office? Do
we agree with this party's platform? Do we agree with a whole
range of things?”
The action one takes in leaving one's home, setting out in one's
car, heading for the polling station and, behind a screen, voting
for someone, is an eminently democratic one.
What governs this democracy? In Canada, it is called the Canada
Elections Act.
The Bloc Quebecois would have expected the government to take
advantage of this bill to amend certain features of the Canada
Elections Act.
In any event, we know that, following an election, the chief
electoral officer, Mr. Kingsley, will have to meet with members
of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to
report on his work. Members of the Bloc Quebecois will have
certain concerns. In the short time left to me, I want to share
just a few of them with the House.
One is that there are no provisions in this bill for more
democratic electoral financing.
When we look at the figures released by Elections Canada on
party financing, we can see that the six major banks in
Canada—which have made record profits in 1999 and 2000—make
contributions to election funds. These record profits made by
major banks are often accumulated at the expense of ordinary
people who experience financial difficulties and who tell
themselves “I have financial problems, I can no longer make the
payments on my house or on my car”.
When the time comes to pull the plug, the major banks do not
hesitate to do so. Nor do they hesitate to pocket billions of
dollars in profits.
The parallel I would like to draw with profits is the following.
When we look at the contributions made to election funds,
whether it is to the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party or
the Canadian Alliance Party, we realize that these major banks
make generous contributions. This is why, following an election,
the government has no interest in changing the rules on public
financing in the Elections Act. The government looks at who
provides the money to fund an election campaign.
It is not in the government's interest to change the Elections
Act. When we look at the figures released by Elections Canada,
we realize that major banks have made generous contributions to
the old parties, the traditional parties.
1640
We really thought that, when the government introduced a bill to
amend the elections act, it would have taken the opportunity to
support the notion of funding by ordinary citizens.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, because of our public financing
policy, have had to rely on $2, $5, $10 and $20 donations during
the last and all the previous election campaigns. But the day
after an election, we are not beholden to any of the
multinational companies who contributed hundreds of thousands of
dollars to our election campaigns. We are funded by ordinary
citizens who tell us “We think you are doing a great job. Here is
$2 to carry on”. The day after the election, we are beholden only
to ordinary citizens.
It would be in the interest of the government to agree to the
motion put forward by one of the Bloc members on March 18, 1994.
We in the Bloc are very consistent. The hon. member for
Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour brought forward Motion No. 150 which
said:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring
in legislation limiting solely to individuals the right to donate
to a federal political party, and restricting such donations to a
maximum of $5,000 a year.
This is one change we expected to see in the bill.
I know my time is running out; tempus fugit, as would have
said my latin teacher at the Séminaire de Chicoutimi.
Second, we expected something about the designation of returning
officers.
What we want and what the people we represent want is a
democratic electoral process that is administered in a more
transparent fashion. So, there should not be any apparent
conflict of interest in the appointment of election officials.
The returning officer, who is the most important election
official in each of our ridings, is appointed on the
recommendation of the governor in council. In parliamentary
terms, it means that cabinet members, the main players, the prime
minister's henchmen, recommend individuals to act as returning
officers. In most cases, if we could look closely at the 301
returning officers, if we had time for such an exercise, we could
see a clear link to the government party. I think this will be a
good exercise for my next filibuster in committee. We will look
at the qualifications of the 301 returning officers in Canada.
Right now, they are all Liberal supporters, but I can assure the
House
that, under the Conservatives—and we saw it in the 1993
election—returning officers were friends of that party. That
proves what we, in the Bloc Quebecois, have always said:
Liberals, Conservatives, it is all the same. That is very
unfortunate.
Why not look at how things are done in the provinces? Quebec
could be used as a model. I presume we do not only do bad things
in Quebec.
In Quebec, returning officers are appointed and confirmed
following an open, transparent, competition in which their
abilities may be made public, where people may be questioned.
They are interviewed by representatives of all the political
parties. Why could the appointment of returning officers not be
a much more transparent process?
In connection with the NDP motion earlier in the week, the
government referred to the Lortie Commission, the Royal
Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing.
1645
In the report of the Lortie Commission, at page 483,
Commissioner Lortie concluded as follows:
A cornerstone of public confidence in any democratic system of
representative government is an electoral process that is
administered efficiently and an electoral law that is enforced
impartially. Securing public trust requires that the election
officials responsible for administration and enforcement be
independent of the government of the day and not subject to
partisan influence.
We can give examples of attitudes seen in the last election on
November 27, 2000. Our memory has not been affected in this
regard by the rigours of winter.
Our wits are not dulled by temperatures reaching 27 below with
the wind chill factor. It may be cold outside, but our heads
are clear and we can recall the partisan decisions made by
Liberal appointed returning officers in the last election. We
could go on listing them until tomorrow morning.
I almost feel like asking for unanimous consent to continue my
speech until I have finished listing all the acts or partisan
action taken by returning officers in our ridings. There
were—and I do not have enough time—the polling stations. In some
instances they were located in tiny community centres where six
or seven polling divisions were put together and the people were
all packed in. They were voting just about beside each other.
They could almost see who the person in the next booth was
voting for.
Such things are totally unacceptable. Although there was a
recreation centre nearby, people were sent five or six
kilometres away from their community. I regret to inform hon.
members that not everyone owns a car. Then there are the
seniors. It was not exactly mid-July weather last November 27,
hon. members will recall. There had been freezing rain. It was
icy. Seniors were not able to exercise their right to vote.
Examples like these illustrate that there truly was partisanship
as far as the returning officers were concerned.
Having spoken of physical locations, I could now go on to the
last-minute additions to the voters' lists. At one point, only
three days before the election, there were 7,000 or 8,000 new
names on the list. These were people that had never been
enumerated. No one knew where they came from. You can imagine
Mr. Speaker—I hardly need say imagine, for you know, having
yourself been elected in a riding—how that can complicate the
election machinery to have to add 5,000 to 6,000 names three or
four days before voting day.
I could also talk about the voting cards. Elections Canada
provided people with a kind of voting card.
In buildings with 64 apartments, voter
information cards were left in the lobby, just like any ad-bag,
newspaper or flyer from Canadian Tire or Pharmaprix. Some people
were literally going to every apartment building picking up those
cards. I have seen some people with 300 to 400 cards in their
possession.
I am sorry, but I still feel very bitter about the last
election. Many members on this side of the House, but also on the
other side of the House—
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would like to direct the House's attention, if I could, to
relevance. The hon. member has dealt with everything from
freezing rain to voter cards. We are dealing with party
recognition on a ballot.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I believe this is more a point of debate
than a point of order. Relevancy is not always obvious. In the
little time they are given, members may put forward arguments to
try to get their point across. In this case, I find the arguments
still sufficiently relevant for us to continue with the debate.
1650
Mr. Michel Guimond: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling.
I know you made it not in my interest, but in the interest of
fairness. At second reading, it is appropriate to address the
principle of a bill, I believe.
I am almost tempted to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons what he is
afraid of. Is he trying to hide something? Should we look a
little deeper into what has been going on in his riding? I know
it hurts. There are things we would rather not have to hear. But
I was about to say that some of us on this side of the House were
hurt by the work of some overly partisan returning officers.
Before the member interrupted me, I was going to say that I
talked with some colleagues on the other side of the House who
are not satisfied either with the application of the Canada
Elections Act in the last general election.
I see the member for Hull—Aylmer is nodding in approval. This
is not meant to be a partisan comment. I simply want to say that
I am disappointed in the fact that the government did not take
the opportunity provided by Bill C-9 to correct some problems in
the Canada Elections Act, in the electoral process which is the
democratic process through which people choose their
representatives. That is the only message I want to convey.
I will say, in conclusion, that we will have the opportunity to
come back to this issue when we hear the chief electoral officer
before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We
hope the government will agree to undertake a detailed, in-depth
and non-partisan study of this bill and to hear, if need be,
members from all parties in the House, not only those nasty
members of the Bloc, but also members of all the other parties.
We talk to each other as parliamentarians. We may have different
opinions, but we have the opportunity to exchange our views. I
shall not reveal the nature of informal discussions I had with
certain colleagues from other parties, but I can say that the
Canada Elections Act was applied in a very twisted way in the
last general election. We should look at it closely and think
about amendments we could bring to ensure that democracy really
exists in Canada and in Quebec.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing
Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Vancouver Island North, the Coast Guard.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to say a few words in support of Bill C-9 which
is before the House at second reading.
The bill, as my colleagues have said, comes out of an Ontario
Court of Appeal ruling on March 10, 1999, almost two years ago.
It suggested that parliament violated the charter of rights when
it made a decision in the old elections act that before a name
could be listed on the ballot, a party had to have at least 50
candidates. Now there has been a recommendation to change that
from 50 candidates to 12 candidates, reflecting the ruling we
have in the House of Commons that to be an official party of the
House of Commons it must have 12 members in its caucus.
We certainly agree with that. We think it is the right way to
go. In terms of the elections act, anything we can do to
democratize the process, to make the process more inclusive and
more empowering for as many Canadians as possible, is the right
way to go. That is what this is doing in a very small way.
Before I go on I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am splitting
my time with my colleague from Palliser.
Regarding inclusiveness, one thing struck me about the debate
today. I wonder if anyone from the Canadian Alliance wants to
comment on this when I sit down.
A few days ago in the House, one of its members introduced a
private member's bill that would go in exactly the opposite
direction. That was the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. His
private member's Bill C-273, would amend the Parliament of Canada
Act in terms of recognizing official parties in the House of
Commons. The bill says: “This bill will provide that in order to
receive official party status, a political party would at least
have to have 10% of the seats in the House of Commons and members
of parliament from at least three different provinces”. In
other words, the Alliance bill would not recognize the Bloc
Quebecois as an official party.
1655
I know my good friend from Vancouver is a very progressive
member of the Alliance Party, so I am not surprised he opposes
this private member's bill.
However, maybe the party could clarify its stance. This bill,
sponsored by the member of the Alliance Party, would exclude the
Bloc Quebecois as an official party of the House because it only
has MPs from one particular province. It would exclude the NDP
because it does not have 10% of the membership of the House. It
would exclude the Conservative Party because it does not have 10%
of the membership of the House. That means it would exclude 63
MPs, so we would have 63 independents. Is that democracy? Is
that inclusiveness? The three parties together received the
votes of roughly one-third of the Canadian people.
I know the minister for financial institutions is scandalized by
this kind of lack of democracy across the way. I would like to
have the Canadian Alliance clarify where it stands on this very
exclusive bill that has been put forth by the member from
Saskatoon.
The bill we have before us today goes in the opposite direction.
It says we should recognize an official party's name on the
ballot that has at least 12 candidates recognized by the chief
electoral officer. That is the way to go.
The goal is to have an electoral system in our country that is
more inclusive, that is more democratic, that is more
transparent, that is more available and that is more egalitarian
to each and every single citizen regardless of who we are and
where we come from.
Again, it is very strange to hear the Alliance Party criticize
the Canada Elections Act for being tough on so-called third party
advertising. Third party advertising should be regulated.
Political parties represent different points of view and have
strict spending guidelines at the national and the local levels.
We must adhere to those guidelines and stipulations.
However, we have the Alliance Party advocating a wide open
season, depending on how deep one's pocketbook is for special
interest and lobby groups that want to get out there and spend a
lot of money in fighting various political parties and political
campaigns. Once again, this shows that it is not really
concerned about basic and fundamental democracy which is so
important to the ordinary citizens.
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Because you lost the support of the big
unions.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, once again, I know the
member from Vancouver who just interjected would not agree with
his party on this. He is more progressive than most of the sort
of Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble people who populate that
particular caucus. That is an important issue. Some of them,
not necessarily the ones who are there now, but some with cowboy
hats sit right behind him during question period. That is the
stance of that party. It pretends to be democratic and populist
right across western Canada but it says and does exactly the
opposite things when it comes to the House of Commons.
I would be very interested during questions and comments to hear
whether or not the Alliance members will support the member
for Saskatoon—Humboldt's private member's bill which would
effectively deny the democratic rights of 63 members of
parliament, representing one-third of the population, to be
recognized as political parties. On the other hand, they get up
in the House and say they would support this bill that would
reduce the number of candidates needed to have one's name on a
ballot from 50 to 12.
There are other items we have to deal with when it comes to
elections. One is the whole question of the voters list. There
were about a million people left off the voters list in the last
campaign. Primarily, they were people from low income areas and
younger people. We need legislation on that as soon as possible.
We had a commitment on that from the government House leader, who
was in charge of the Canada Elections Act in the House of
Commons, about a week or so ago.
The final point I want to make is we should do what the Canada
Elections Act says we can do. We should look at a different
method of voting. If we look under clause 2 of the bill before
us, it says:
The Chief Electoral Officer may carry out studies on voting,
including studies respecting alternative voting means—
1700
As we said on our opposition day on Tuesday, we should be
striking an all party committee to look at incorporating some
elements of proportional representation into our voting system
like most countries in the world. Almost every country in the
world with 8 million or 9 million people has some PR in the
system.
This morning we heard from the prime minister of Great Britain,
the mother of our parliamentary system. In the last few years
Great Britain has incorporated some PR into the Scottish
parliament and into the Welsh parliament. It elects all its
members to the European community in Brussels through
proportional representation.
According to the Jenkins commission, which was set up a few
years ago to look at electoral reform, the British parliament
will probably adopt very soon a method of PR, if not in the next
election, in the election that is coming in about five years
time.
If the mother of parliaments can do that, we should be
modernizing our system as well by moving toward a system of
proportional representation that will allow the votes of every
citizen to be treated as equal: all votes would be equal; all
votes would carry weight; people could empower themselves; and
there would no wasted votes.
The irony of the present system is that often Canadians do not
vote for their first choice. Canadians often vote for one
candidate to stop another. A good example is my friend, the
right hon. member for Calgary Centre. Thousands of Liberals, New
Democrats, Green Party supporters and progressive people voted
for him to stop the Alliance in Calgary Centre. They did so
because he was more progressive. Obviously he is more
progressive. I recognize that fact. He is a very progressive
member of parliament. He is a red Tory. He is a progressive
Tory, a very progressive person.
If we had a system of proportional representation we would have
a system where people could vote for their first choice, vote for
their philosophy, vote for the ideology. If it were a German
type of system they would have a vote for their local MP and then
a vote for their party preference in terms of a parliamentary
list provided by each of the political parties. They could be
voting for their first choice. Their first choice and vision
would be part of the Government of Canada and the Parliament of
Canada.
We should be looking at this as one of the possibilities in
terms of passing the bill. The chief electoral officer could
look into various systems of voting, different alternatives of
voting and strike a committee to do just that.
We support the bill at second reading. The other parts of the
bill are largely technical. Part of it is just making sure that
the English version coincides with the French version and vice
versa. We will be looking at some of those in more detail in
committee.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I ask the member to refer back to the private member's
bill of the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt of the Canadian
Alliance Party. I have a copy of it and it says that the bill
would prevent fringe parties, such as the Progressive
Conservative Party and the NDP, from having seats in the Commons.
I do not think of us as a fringe party, either the NDP or the
Conservative Party. We perform a valuable service. We represent
thousands of people.
When I read that my immediate thought was that we should refer
to the Alliance Party as the fringe benefit party. Its members
ran on promises. If they were elected their leader would not
move into Stornoway, for example. They would turn it into a
bingo hall. If we check who is living there now, we will find
that the leader of the Alliance Party lives there.
They also said that they would not take a car for the leader.
Their leader would not accept a car, and he has one now.
The ultimate flip-flop was the pension issue. I know candidates
who ran in the 1993 election and lost their seats. They were
hammered because righteous Alliance Party members said that they
would never take a pension. Good candidates were defeated on
that one issue.
Now they say they have families to look after. What about the
families of the others that were misled, defeated and maligned?
We should call it the fringe benefit party or the flip-flop party.
How does the hon. member think we could attract more people to
vote? How could we re-establish credibility with the voters and
the electorate? There was a very low turnout in the last
election. It was shameful that so few people felt motivated to
vote.
1705
I would like the hon. member to address how we could present a
better package, not as a party but as a group of politicians. How
could we attract more voters?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I think the best way of
doing that is by practising what we preach, by being true to our
word, true to our commitment, true to our principles and true to
our promises in a campaign.
The member summed up the Alliance Party. Its members said they
would never move into Stornoway and they did. They said they
would never take a pension and they did. They said they would
never eat in the parliamentary restaurant and they do. They said
they would never travel business class on an airplane and they
do.
They think all voters should be equal, all people should be
equal and all provinces should be equal. Then they introduce a
private member's bill in the House which says that parties should
not be equal, that the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservatives should
not be official parties. Those parties represent one-third of
the Canadian people and 63 members of parliament.
The previous leader of the Alliance Party, the member from
Calgary, used to go across the country talking ad nauseam about
the equality of the provinces and the equality of people being a
fundamental value. He said he believed in the fundamental
equality of the Canadian people.
Yet when it comes to putting its preaching into practice in the
House of Commons, the Alliance comes up with a private member's
bill that does not treat the people equally. If people vote for
the Bloc, the NDP or the Conservatives, they will not be treated
the same as those who vote for the Liberals or the Alliance.
How could we justify that? I have been challenging Alliance
members to explain why they would breach their all important
promise of equality for the people, but they are afraid to rise
in the House to defend this private member's bill.
The people of Canada should realize what they said, that no
party in the House should be recognized as official unless it has
at least 10% of the seats. That would mean 31 seats for the NDP
instead of 13, or 31 for the Conservatives instead of 12. They
also said that the party should have members from three
provinces. That would exclude the Bloc Quebecois, unless the
Bloc elects somebody in Vancouver, Calgary and Yukon or somewhere
else.
The Alliance Party is supposed to be a populist, grassroots
party of the people where everyone is equal. That is the kind of
party and vision its members said they had. That is one reason
people are turned off by politics. They have another political
party which, more than others, is old style and old fashioned. It
practises old politics where it says one thing in the campaign
and once elected does exactly the opposite. That is why people
are cynical about the process. I want somebody from the Alliance
Party to respond to my question.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate this
afternoon. I have listened to the debate throughout and was
intrigued by the comments of the government House leader
indicating that they were relatively minor amendments. The
member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has dealt with the suggestion of 12
candidates in order for a party to be considered official.
I was more intrigued by the commitment of the House leader that
he would be open to much more significant changes to the Canada
Elections Act following Jean-Pierre Kingsley's report to the
appropriate
parliamentary committee having an opportunity to discuss his
findings regarding the recent election.
All members of the House of Commons would want to pay close
attention to that report and to what Mr. Kingsley, the chief
electoral officer, and Elections Canada find as a result of the
November 2000 election.
I should like to associate myself with some of the remarks made
by the member for Edmonton North. It was a difficult election
campaign with the permanent voters list that has now come into
play.
While the member for Edmonton North referred to brand new
subdivisions that were springing up overnight and to the
difficulty of keeping up in her riding, the situation experienced
in the riding of Palliser was quite a bit different. We found
that low income people and people who moved a lot, probably
because they are low income people and students, were being
discriminated against as a result of the national registration of
voters.
1710
We used to have an enumeration prior to each election campaign.
That system worked very well over many years, but it was changed.
The last enumeration took place on the eve of the 1997 election
and then in the November 2000 election we were into an update.
It was argued at the time that it would be much more effective
to use computers, et cetera, so that people could be tracked. We
are finding that a lot of the information is not available or not
able to be placed into an updated voters list because of our
privacy laws. This is why Mr. Kingsley's comments will be so
important when they are made. I will give the House an example.
As I was door knocking in my riding I noticed Elections Canada
flyers on certain doorsteps advising that one or more of the
residents in the household had reached the age of 18 and was
therefore eligible to cast a ballot if he or she would fill out a
form.
It seems passing strange to me that those names are not placed
automatically on the ballot, but apparently our privacy laws
prohibit that. If the privacy laws are that strict, and there
are good arguments not to change them, we really need to consider
seriously going back to a system of enumeration.
As my colleague pointed out, one million people were left off
the voters list in the last election. We had one of the lowest
turnouts in history. In my riding of Palliser the vote was just
over 62%. I make the point again that it was primarily low
income people and people who tend to move around a lot.
One can get on the voters list. It is easier to get on the
voters list on election day than it used to be, but one still
requires identification or must be sworn in by a friend. A lot
of times genuine low income people do not have an abundance of
personal ID. It is difficult for them to find someone to go with
them, hold their hand at the polling booth and say this is Jane
Smith or whomever. I think we must look at the whole area, and I
am pleased the government House leader has made a commitment on
that.
At the same time I want to be critical of Mr. Kingsley for
suggesting the answer to low voter turnout was compulsory voting.
A lot of our problems have to do with the transition to the
permanent voters list from the enumerated list. We need to tidy
that up and make it more effective. If we cannot tidy it up we
should revert to the enumeration system.
The member for Edmonton North also noted the situation in
Saskatchewan, which has not had a political tax credit at the
provincial level, and the need to remedy it. I suspect she knows
a bill has already been passed but not yet proclaimed in that
legislature. I have been given assurances the problem will be
remedied in Saskatchewan's new session of parliament which
probably begins in a month or so. Then there will be political
tax credits in all 10 provinces. We have had a federal tax
credit in Canada since the mid-1970s. We look forward to that
progressive change in Saskatchewan's legislation.
Another item which deserves to be raised and to which my
colleague alluded was the question of third party advertising. I
too very much support strict limits on third party advertising
during election campaigns. The political parties that
participate in campaigns have very rigid spending limits that
must be followed. It would be patently unfair for people with
deep pockets to be able to subvert or buy their way into the
media to effect changes that the political parties do not have
the budget to do.
1715
We recognize, and I think the government recognizes, through the
legislation it has endeavoured to bring in over the last number
of years, that third parties should be able to advertise during
election campaigns. However they should spend only a finite
amount of money on advertising, less than what political parties
are able to spend, because an election campaign is a contest
between all the parties, big and small, and not the folks with
the big bank accounts.
We align ourselves in the New Democratic Party very much with
finite limits on third party advertising, unlike the lead
spokesperson in the debate for the Canadian Alliance Party.
To conclude, I would encourage colleagues who are interested to
look at a document entitled The National Register of
Electors, which raises questions about the new approach to
voter registration in Canada. It would take only about 10 or 15
minutes to read through the booklet. It was written before the
results were tallied, so it says in effect that the November 27
election serves as the litmus test for the national registration
of voters.
It wonders whether the move to a permanent voters list from the
enumeration system was done as a cost saving venture. I hope
that when Mr. Kingsley and the parliamentary committee studying
the legislation looks at this fundamental change to the act,
tough questions like that will be asked by the parliamentarians
who serve on the committee.
I see my time is drawing to a close. I will conclude by saying
that we in my party are supportive of the minor technical
amendments in the bill. Far more importantly, however, we are
interested in the fundamental changes that the government House
leader alluded to when he led off the debate this afternoon.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate and to note that
this is an important piece of legislation. It is, in essence,
the rules of engagement that apply to those who seek public
office.
Although the bill has some rather particular aspects to it that
are addressed in the overall scheme of things, I think it is
timely, given that we have recently resumed this session of
parliament and come through an election, that we look at how
elections are conducted.
The bill, as has been noted, would amend the Canada Elections
Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. It is a bill
that, as I indicated, deals substantially with two aspects that
came out of a court case in the province of Ontario.
I begin my remarks by saying that it is good to see. I say with
some sarcasm that the government has not changed the way it deals
with legislation such as this in parliament. It is good to see
that it has remained consistent and predictable. The government
has treated this legislation, like many other pieces of
legislation of this type, by not consulting. That is to say that
it did not go to the effort of prior consultation with political
parties in order to gain consensus, which was always the practice
when it came to bills of this nature. It is disappointing and
yet, as I indicated, it has become somewhat an expected attitude
and approach on the part of the government.
The current Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands,
served with great distinction on a special committee on electoral
reform between 1991 and 1993 when he was a member of the
opposition. A committee that was chaired by Mr. Jim Hawkes, the
Progressive Conservative member from Calgary at that time,
studied many of the same issues that we see before us.
That committee, in coming to its conclusions, stated quite
emphatically that it would not report to the Chamber unless the
recommendations were endorsed by all three political parties in
existence at that time. There was an effort to recognize that
consensus on issues such as this are extremely important.
My, how times have changed.
1720
However, in regard to this particular piece of legislation, the
electoral act, changes have come before the Chamber since 1994
time and again without prior agreement, without consensus as to
the content. That very much puts the government and this
legislation, sadly, on shaky ground in terms of its legitimacy.
The last legislation of this type that came before parliament,
Bill C-2 as it then was, was subjected to time allocation, which
is of course again a practice that we have seen far too often in
the past number of years. In fact, the trigger-happy government
House leader has now used time allocation 69 times. Again, my,
how times change. When the government House leader was a member
of the opposition, it was so offensive to him and such an affront
to democracy, yet a different attitude now prevails.
Turning back to the bill itself, I must admit that the changes
now before us are reasonable in their content. They are changes
that result from a court case that came out of the Ontario court
of appeal. It bears noting that these changes will, I believe,
enhance the current legislation, although I was hoping that in
this parliament the first encounter we would have on a bill such
as this, the first opportunity we would have to address this
issue, would be met with perhaps a different attitude so that we
would be able to deal with this problem of encountering each
other in a different fashion. That does not appear to be the
case.
One of the major problems, which was apparent to all Canadians
and all parliamentarians, in the last election was the difficulty
with the permanent voters list. We have heard a litany of
stories of constituents who found that when they went to vote, to
exercise their democratic right, a very important right and one
that we all encourage in this legislation, their names were
absent or there was some anomaly like not being listed at the
appropriate polling station.
We all have to be very diligent. I hope this legislation in its
final draft will address some of the problems surrounding the
application of the permanent voters list. There is a huge
frustration, as one can appreciate, whether it be a member of the
voting public from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough or from any
constituency in the country, when individuals make that important
statement of going to cast their ballot and arrive at a polling
station only to find that for one reason or another their names
are not listed.
I hope that when the bill goes to committee we will have an
opportunity to delve into it in greater detail. That is not to
say that this is not the proper forum to discuss some of the
problems and some of the changes that could occur, but I hope
that at that time in particular we will have an opportunity to
pose questions to the chief electoral officer and his staff
regarding some of these issues that arose during the last
campaign.
From these problems and this experience, we might get some idea
from Mr. Kingsley, the chief electoral officer, of the cost of
creating this permanent electoral list, of the attempts that will
of course follow to keep it up to date, and of the safeguards
that ensure it is accurate, for this in and of itself has to
be the fundamental purpose of having a permanent voters list, a
list that reflects the eligible voters of the various
constituencies around the country. It appears, in its current
form at least, to be flawed. This is an opportunity to change
that, to improve upon this permanent voters list and the efforts
that were made to put this in place in the first place.
The overall amendments to the current legislation as compared to
the last parliament's appear to be fairly straightforward in
nature. Bill C-9 responds to the Ontario court of appeal case
known as Figueroa. This case dealt with a submission on the part
of the Communist Party of Canada, an argument that many of the
provisions of the Canada Elections Act in its current form
benefited larger political parties and therefore, by virtue of
the same method, discriminated against the smaller political
groupings.
1725
With regard to the identification of candidates and political
parties on the ballot, the court held that provisions of the
Canada Elections Act limit identification of candidates' party
affiliations on the ballot to candidates that were endorsed by
organized political parties which supported 50 or more candidates
in a general election.
It was found in the ruling by the majority on the court that
this would infringe the charter. By virtue of its decision, the
court did, as is often the case, give the Parliament of Canada an
opportunity to address the issue, the anomaly, and to fix the
problem.
The court felt that there was no justification, as it wrote in
the ruling, for bringing the 50 candidates limit in relation to
this matter or for having that in place. It discriminated
against smaller political groups and was thus, in the court's
opinion, not justifiable under the charter. It did not meet what
has become known as the Oakes test.
This was a common sense judgment in my view, and the way in
which it has been handled is the way that it should have been
handled, that is, it is now back in the place where legislation
is to be drafted and produced. It is back in our hands for us to
do just that job.
The court put in place a time period to rewrite the applicable
portion of that legislation. It set no particular guidelines in
its findings with respect to the 50 candidates rule. It did not
say it was too high but it did not set a bottom number either, so
the current legislation produces the number of 15, which may be
arbitrary. That is again something that will be examined by the
committee. It is interesting to note that the number of 15 is
that which was recommended by a royal commission on electoral
reforms that was established after the 1988 general election.
The bill before us does in fact recommend that political parties
can have their names printed under the name of the supported
candidate if the nomination of 12 candidates of that party is
confirmed by the chief electoral officer at the close of
nominations.
At the committee I or a representative of the Progressive
Conservative Party will look forward with great interest to
listening to the reasons for picking this number and why it is
that the government feels it is the particular number that would
be defensible and charter proof in any future challenges. That
is something we have to bear in mind when we put this final
number in place.
I want to make a brief passing reference to the issue of Bill
C-273, which was in my view quite meanspirited and a bit
inflammatory in its reference to fringe parties in this Chamber.
I think it is disrespectful and trivializing to introduce
legislation of this sort and is purely political posturing.
However, that said, I think the hon. member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt, with some humility, might consider
withdrawing this particular bill because of its inflammatory
nature, and I think that good faith on his part might be
forthcoming.
I do look forward to dealing with this particular bill when it
gets to the committee and looking at the possibility of fine
tuning some of the amendments.
Some of the other particular amendments that come out of this
legislation deal with the advertising blackout period, which is
important because of the vastness of the country, because of the
time change that occurs not only on election night but in the
periods before the campaign. This is also an important
consideration.
There is the adjustment of expense limits for candidates should
there be differences in the total number of voters between the
preliminary electoral list and the revised list.
These are important rules of engagement to be governed by the
legislation.
In any event, the committee will have an opportunity to look at
these matters in greater detail. The committee will have an
opportunity to hear from the chief electoral officer. In fact, I
am sure the government House leader, who has carriage of this
bill, will be an able and apt participant in those discussions.
I see that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is
present too, and I am very hopeful that the indication that the
government is very forthcoming and forthright about electoral
reform also applies to parliamentary reform. I want to refer
briefly to an occasion where there was an opportunity to bring
about some political reform too. That was to have—
1730
The Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon.
member. When this matter is taken up before the House at the next
opportunity, he will have approximately eight minutes remaining
in his intervention.
It being 5.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
AUTOMOTIVE POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-254, an act to protect human health and the environment by
oxygenating automotive fuels and eliminating the gasoline
additive MMT, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce at second
reading Bill C-254, which is an act to protect human health and
the environment by oxygenating automobile fuels and eliminating
the additive MMT.
I am sad to say that due to the constrictions of our system this
so-called debate will end today in one hour and this bill has not
been declared votable, which I am very sad about, considering
that just yesterday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, the highest authority regarding climate change, stated
that in this century there might be a climate change rise, that
the seas might rise between one and even eight metres. Here we
are in the House not being able to debate important issues such
as transportation fuel, which accounts for 25% of greenhouse
gases.
In fact, the objective of my bill is two-fold: first of all to
oxygenate gasoline or diesel fuel by at least 2.7% in weight,
which is roughly equivalent to 8% oxygenation by volume, and
second, to phase out the additive MMT, which would then not be
required, by July 2005, to give time for this to happen.
The principle behind oxygenation of gasoline or diesel fuel is
very simple. The more oxygen you put in fuel, whether it is
gasoline or diesel fuel, the less toxicity there is. I have a
chart drawn by one of the foremost experts in fuel which shows
there are several problems with gasoline or diesel fuel: carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen
oxides, particulate matter, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide.
In addition, because we use unleaded gasoline and we are trying
to phase out benzene, we have to further refine gasoline to the
nth degree to permit these things to happen.
What we are trying to do instead of using piecemeal solutions to
nitrous oxide or carbon monoxide or other problems with fuels is
to use one holistic approach, because what we can do by
oxygenating fuels is to use ethanol, which is a pure, natural
substance. The more we refine gasoline or diesel, the more CO2
and toxic carcinogens take place.
Ethanol has the highest octane, the highest oxygen and the
highest CO2 fighting properties of any alternative fuel available
today. In addition to it being a natural fuel, it can be produced
out of coal or biomass such as buffalo grass or trees. It can be
produced out of sugar cane and it can even be produced out of
solid waste from municipal dumps.
Being a natural substance, it produces a lot of oxygen. If we
could use 100% ethanol in our automobiles it would be equal to
35% of oxygen within the fuel.
We are so far behind the United States, it is not funny. The
United States started to talk about oxygenation of gasoline way
back when in 1990, when it amended the U.S. clean air act to
force oxygenation of gasoline in wintertime in certain targeted
large cities which had a particular pollution problem.
1735
Last year 28 states of the United States were legislating on
oxygenation. This year it might be all the 50 states. My bill
used the state of Minnesota as a model which legislated
oxygenation four years ago. It now has 10 ethanol producing
plants which produced 869 million litres of ethanol, three times
what we are producing in the all of Canada.
In the Chicago area oxygenated gas or oxy-fuel is the only
gasoline or diesel fuel one can buy. It produces 2.25 billion
litres of ethanol. Here we are still in the dark ages because we
do not want to debate the issue. We do not want to legislate
it. We go by piecemeal solutions without legislation to back it
up.
I wish to give an example of what is done in the United States.
By the spring of 2001 there will be 1.2 million vehicles fuelled
by what is known as E85, which is 85% ethanol. In Canada, we
have 25 vehicles that are run by the Ministry of Natural
Resources. Our buses run on 10% ethanol but our cars do not.
Why can we not legislate it? Why can we not be like the United
States? Why can we not be like Sweden where ethanol is available
from north to south and where the Scania buses run on 100%
ethanol which is 35% oxygenated fuel?
We do not even want to discuss it here. My bill is non-votable
because as private members we are not supposed to have smart
ideas. We are not supposed to know. Meanwhile, 28 states of the
United States debated legislation last year and perhaps up to 50
states will debate it this year.
Why should we also ban MMT? I know we have had debates on this
subject where the Canadian Alliance and the Bloc Quebecois fought
hard for the Ethyl Corporation. I ask for one good reason why we
in Canada should be the silly guinea pigs, the only industrial
nation on earth using MMT.
It is not used in Sweden, Norway, Finland, England or Germany.
It is not even used in the United States, the home of the Ethyl
Corporation, because it is manganese, a chemical that has
toxifying properties.
Scientists not only in the United States but in Europe and
elsewhere, and certainly the two leading scientists on manganese
in Canada, Dr. Mergler at the University of Quebec in Montreal
and Dr. Zayed at the University of Montreal, have shown in their
studies a connection between manganese and motor impairment in
human beings.
I know the studies are not conclusive. I know our health
ministry is conducting another multi-year study. Surely we as a
country should sign the real precautionary principle which says
that if there is a threat perceived to human health and the
environment then let us not use the substance.
My bill was designed to oxygenate gasoline and to phase out MMT
by 2005 because it is not needed and it is a toxic agent.
Unfortunately my bill will die in one hour at the date when we
are supposed to be fighting climate change.
I must say in presenting this bill that I am at the same time
saddened. I hope we will use these opportunities to reform our
system, to give private members a chance to debate ideas whether
they are right or they are wrong in front of all their peers, not
in front of a little committee of five or six people that decides
in secret whether it is good or it is bad.
1740
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that was a very interesting presentation by the hon.
member. As he suggested, we have been around and around this
debate for many years in the House. He has not changed his mind
and I have not changed my mind. Certainly the bitterness that he
expresses over the length of time he gets to debate the issue,
his grievance is not with the opposition, our party, but with his
own government.
We came back to this place, presented proposals and advocated
change to the parliamentary rules that govern this place. We
presented proposals to change how this place works and how it
could be more democratic so that members like himself could have
more say in what goes on around here and have a better chance to
debate ideas from the backbenches.
However, at the same time, I do not see the hon. member, who
did the complaining a minute ago, standing and voting against his
government to help that process change. It is disappointing that
did not happen.
Aside from that, I will now go to the bill at hand. I have a
problem with a couple of issues in the bill, one being the MMT
issue and the other being oxygenation. I essentially agree with
what the member said. If we could oxygenate to the levels he
suggested, the octane enhancing additive would not be necessary.
However, to do that it would require an enhanced refining
process, thereby adding to the cost of refining a litre of
gasoline.
We have not built any refineries for many years but the demand
for gasoline has increased tremendously. We are at a point where
the balance between demand and supply is very tight. If the
demand rises much more, or we enhance the refining process and
slow down the time it takes to put a barrel of crude oil through
a refinery and the production of gasoline at the other end is
extended, then we will have domestic shortages in supply of
gasoline. That has to be a concern. The idea sounds viable and
has merit but we have to look at the supply and demand side of
the situation too.
On the whole issue of MMT, the member opposite and I have argued
on this many times before. I do not necessarily disagree with
his point of view that it would be a good thing to remove the
additive MMT from gasoline because of the potential harm that
manganese could do to human beings. I have a far greater concern
with his position than to argue the merits of manganese in
gasoline.
The point I argued when we had this debate before was that
Health Canada researched the issue and reported back that the
amounts of MMT or manganese that is added to gasoline to enhance
octane has no harmful effect on human health. Yet he and other
members of his caucus have argued that it is deadly dangerous
stuff, that it is killing people or has the potential to kill
people and that we should ban it.
We should ban it, of course, on the precautionary principle, but
Health Canada said that it looked at it from the precautionary
principle and that it rejected banning it simply because it could
not see that it was harmful to human health.
If members of the government are saying that Health Canada is
not protecting the health of Canadians, that it is not ruling
wisely and using precautionary measures to ban this substance, as
the members seem to be intimating, then I think we are in really
big trouble. If Health Canada is not protecting the health of
Canadians on this issue, how many other issues is it not
protecting the health of Canadians on?
Let us not stand here and rave about the evils of MMT. Let us
fix the system so that Health Canada will be able to do the job
that everyone hopes it is doing in order to protect Canadians.
When it does a study and reports that a product is not harmful to
our health, then members, such as the one who just spoke, can
have confidence and be comfortable that in fact is the case. I
have to believe it is.
I cannot stand here and think that Health Canada would endanger
all of us, for whatever reason, from incompetence or influence by
Ethyl Corporation or any of the other things that have been
suggested.
1745
The issue is much bigger than what the member suggests. He is a
member of the government that has been in power now for some
seven years. He had better work on his government to fix the
problems, not only with how private members' bills are debated,
but on how government agencies like Health Canada work to protect
Canadians. Those are such important issues that he needs to
argue with his ministries and his government, not with the
opposition.
On the issue of ethanol, he indicated how other parts of the
world, particularly the United States, were so far ahead of us in
the use and production of ethanol. I do not argue that ethanol
is a much cleaner burning fuel. It would be a good idea if we
had more ethanol, but Canadians have to know that without an 8
cent excise subsidy on ethanol production it is not economical in
Canada. Without the 8 cent subsidy, we simply would not have
that industry.
I have real concerns because the Minister of Natural Resources
suggested in the House today that the government's position is to
greatly increase the production of ethanol and to enjoy all the
benefits that come with it. Creating an industry that cannot
exist without that level of subsidization is not good economic
policy. Somewhere the house of cards will come crashing down and
we will pay the price. Whether it is the government through the
use of taxpayer dollars that pays the price or whether it is the
consuming public at the pump, somebody has to pay the price and
will do so.
In spite of all the rhetoric around climate change, the horror
stories about what might or might not happen because of climate
change around the world, Canadians generally have not shown a
real willingness to pay the price.
A few moments ago I came from a briefing with the Conference
Board of Canada where the government commissioned a study on the
price of gasoline. There were some members of the government at
the briefing. I have heard them a number of times raging about
the rip-off in the gasoline market and in gasoline prices. There
was huge outrage last summer when gasoline prices in parts of
Canada were spiking at 90 cents a litre.
If the member is suggesting that Canadians are willing to pay
the price, be it 8 cents a litre for more ethanol or be it for
more intensive refining to reduce tailpipe emissions, the
government has a big job ahead of it to convince Canadians that
it needs to be done and they should be willing to do it.
As I listened in my riding and elsewhere all across the country,
Canadians were outraged and members of the House seemed to be
outraged at the level of gasoline prices last summer. If we do
the things the member wants to do then we had better get used to
those gasoline prices. We will again see even higher gasoline
prices this summer than we saw last summer. Some would suggest
that gas will spike at $1.28 a litre when we hit the peak driving
season this summer in some parts of Canada. Again we will hear
that outcry from one side of the country to the other.
If we are really serious and if we think we should do what the member
suggests then we have a big selling job.
I do not have a big selling job. His party is the government. It
has a big selling job to do in Canada. The government better get
started on it right away if it is going to win that argument.
1750
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is a great pleasure for me to rise today and talk about this
issue. I was a car dealer for 18 years prior to the career I
have now. I was very involved when the very first pollution
devices came in. The environment became a subject that we talked
about every day from the factory level to the dealer level.
This whole debate brings forth a lot of questions which have
been raised by several members of the House. We raised questions
about the process of how private members' bills work and how
effective they are and could be. Questions have been raised
about the confidence that people have in Health Canada. We had
the actual issue raised by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis about
helping the environment by removing MMT from gasoline and
increasing the oxygenation.
I would like to compliment the hon. member for bringing this
forth. It takes a great deal of effort, stamina, confidence and
research to produce a bill like this and to see it through the
procedure, which can be very discouraging. However, the hon.
member has followed through and has shown his usual diligence and
ability to overcome.
We are talking about this today, although not in the way he
would like. He would like it to be a votable issue. He would
like it to go to committee. That is what should have happened.
There are so many questions on so many aspects of this that we
really have not had the chance to scrutinize the issue. We have
not had a chance to do the homework on it. We have not had the
examination on it or heard from witnesses. Now we never will
because it was determined that it would not go to a vote. We
lost that opportunity which would have helped a lot of us
understand the issue better than we do, or at least better than I
understand it now. We have missed an opportunity and I think it
is a shame.
The member has certainly raised the bar on standards for
environment and health. By bringing this forth he has shown
initiative and courage. It is interesting that his government
has not had an environmental piece of legislation of any
consequence for the eight years it has been here. Yet the member
brought forth this bill. We should move a motion to make him the
minister, then I am sure we would have some really interesting
environmental bills.
In any case, if MMT is poisonous or if it is a hazard to our
health and the environment, it can do a great deal of damage. An
incredible volume of gasoline, diesel and other fuels now use
MMT. I honestly do not know whether MMT is a dangerous substance
or not. I probably will not know now that we will not have a
chance to take this to committee and hear from witness who do
know and who are experts in the field. However, if it is as
dangerous as he fears it is, then I we should be taking steps to
do what he wants to do, which is to have research provided from
other sources than Health Canada.
I agree with Health Canada and have a great deal of respect for it
as well. However, there are still a lot of other bodies that
question the potential damage that MMT can do. Health Canada is
a respectable outfit but there are other respectable outfits that
are just as respectable. They also say that MMT poses a serious
health and environmental hazard.
We think it deserves more research, more debate in the House and
more from experts. I hope the hon. member does not give up with
the way the bill has gone through in a non-votable fashion. I
hope he will keep on pressing the issue. I hope he will keep
bringing it forth at committee or at every opportunity he has.
We agree with the concept and with the principle. However, I do
not have the information to work with and I do not feel
comfortable with the information that is available. It is kind
of like the national missile defence system. The government said
it would make a decision when it had the information. For me, I
do not have the information at the level with which I feel
comfortable. I probably will not get it now because it will not
go to committee and we will not have the opportunity to get that
information.
However, I do want to commend the hon. member for bringing it
forth and for his diligence and determination.
1755
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I too, in following along with our last speaker, would like to
congratulate the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for bringing this
matter back to the House. I know that the member has a
commitment to private members' business and to the environment.
As a result of that he has brought this bill back. After having
said all that, however, I could not support this bill if it were
votable.
We have to remember a number of things in the House. I heard
the critic from the fifth party refer to the science of this
issue. We have to read the bill and go back to recent history,
recent history being 1995, 1996 and 1997, when a debate was held
in this place on this very topic, specifically with respect to
MMT. At that time a lot of preposterous things were said about
it.
First, it was said that MMT was not used in third world
countries such as Colombia, Venezuela and all sorts of other
places. That is very true because in those countries leaded
gasoline is used.
Second, it was said that MMT was prohibited in the United
States. That is absolutely false. This is the same as saying
Canadian money is prohibited in the United States or vice versa
or that we do not use American money in Canada and what is wrong
with that. The real point is the Americans had a much different
process of licensing additives. That process has worked in the
United States. In 1995 or 1996 the American EPA licensed MMT and
today it is used in about 30% of gasoline sold in that country.
Many things have been said around this topic, which I would
characterize at the level of grade nine science, that are not
correct. Look at the bill and remember back in history as to
what occurred in this very place under a government bill.
We talk about the environment, yet clause 4 of this bill issues
a prohibition to import a product. How can we use an ostensibly
environmental bill as a trade bill? The answer is quite simple.
There is no evidence whatsoever that MMT is detrimental to the
environment or one's health.
The argument was made before the American EPA that MMT brought a
lot of positive attributes, one being it reduces NOx emissions.
It lowers such things as sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and
carbon dioxide emissions in the refining process. MMT boosts the
octane rating of gasoline so less crude oil is used. There are a
number of positive attributes. Canada has been using it since
1977 and has reaped the benefits of MMT usage.
I will go back to recent history. In 1995 a great crusade
started in this place to ban MMT importation. This is what
clause 4 of Bill C-254 would do. However, we really do not have
any reason for doing it. If I go back to 1997, that bill became
law.
In June of 1997 an interprovincial trade tribunal ruled that the
bill which was passed in this place, in the Senate and received
royal assent, was in contravention of interprovincial trade. The
environment officials, who so vehemently defended the bill before
House and Senate committees and who said they were following the
political lead of doing the right thing, were forced to do a 180
degree turn.
In June of 1997, just as the dog days of summer were about to
begin, the then minister of industry and the minister of the
environment issued a press release and attended a press
conference at which time they did three things. First, they said
mea culpa, they were wrong. They apologized to the manufacturer
Ethyl Corporation.
1800
Second, they said that law could be of no force or effect.
Third, they were required to issue a cheque to Ethyl Corporation
for about $18 million Canadian.
That is a pretty remarkable series of events done on the eve of
summer. They had to do that because, first, what they did was
wrong, and second, they would not listen. They would not listen
to the science. It was Grade 9 science they were listening to.
They would not listen to their provincial counterparts. Quebec,
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Alberta objected to the bill. They
thought it was a good product and did not want to be deprived of
it.
The end result of that little exercise was that the Canadian
taxpayer forked out $18 million and the Ministers of Industry and
of the Environment said to Ethyl Corporation “We are sorry and
we made a mistake and we will not do it again”.
Here we are and we are doing it again.
On that basis I would like to apply what is called the prudence
principle: that is, it is prudent not to do what we know is
against laws, mainly laws of interprovincial trade and under
NAFTA.
I have a couple of final points. We have heard a lot about the
precautionary principle and we have heard reference to the Rio
convention and all other international accords entered into by
Canada. If one assumes that the precautionary principle is to be
applied in the face of lack of any evidence—in fact the evidence
is quite to the contrary, but at that time, of course, the
government would not allow a third party scientific panel to get
involved and do an assessment—I would make the same suggestion
that we could probably outlaw Tim Horton's doughnuts because if
we eat enough of them they are bad for us. If we eat bacon every
morning, it will probably kill us. The precautionary principle
in the absence of any scientific evidence is not what Rio
intended.
I would like to make a couple of comments with respect to the
addition into the argument of the use of ethanol. I would concur
a great deal with what the member for Athabasca had to say about
that point, and that is this: yes, in the United States ethanol
is used extensively, however, we have to look at why that is the
case. The case is that in the United States a number of highly
populated cities were having problems with CO2 emissions. The
end result is that ethanol usage will decrease CO2. Of course it
ups the NOX, but it is a bit of a balance of both. The Americans
decided that they would use ethanol to cut smog. There were 11
centres in the U.S. where ethanol was mandatory at 10%.
How do they do it? The senators in some of the midwestern
states got about to subsidizing corn production in a big way. If
we want to subsidize corn farmers, and I am not making an
argument against that, let us just say so. Or as the member for
Athabasca has said, let us explain to Canadians why the price of
gasoline is going up. Part of it is the price of crude,
absolutely, but a bigger factor in all of this is what occurs in
places right here and in provincial capitals where, as we saw
last year, sulphur requirements were imposed upon the industry
without its co-operation: we are seeing that the price of
gasoline will rise.
In summary, I say that this is once again bringing in something
that ought not to be declared a law, and it is not likely to be
under the circumstances. Second, we have to be a little more
frank and open with people when we start going on crusades in
this place about gasoline prices. There have been 12 federal
inquiries and one provincial inquiry in Ontario and what did they
prove? Absolutely nothing. They proved that we are a
contributing factor to the high price of gasoline.
1805
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I want to echo some of the comments some of the other members
have made with regard to the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. It is
to his credit and his long term commitment to the environment
that he has brought forth this bill today. It is unfortunate
that it is a non-votable one. Perhaps as this draws more
attention, the government may see its way clear to meeting some
of the commitments it made over a period of time and dealing with
some of the fiasco that has occurred around the use of the MMT.
I want to re-emphasize a number of points that have been made by
the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. The reality is that most of the
industrialized world does not use MMT in gasoline. It is banned
in a number of states in the United States and, in fact, 85% of
the U.S. refineries do not use MMT. I think everybody in this
debate recognizes that there is a concern with regard to the use
of the MMT in terms of a serious potential risk to human health
and a risk to the environment.
Specifically with regard to the environment, there is no debate.
The scientific evidence on this is clear: the use of the MMT does
inhibit and in fact in a lot of cases renders useless emission
control devices in automobiles, resulting in a number of toxins
being released into the atmosphere.
MMT was initially banned in the U.S. because of concerns around
hydrocarbon emissions, but there were further studies and there
has been some reference made to them today. Again, there is no
debate within the health and scientific communities that high
concentrations of manganese can cause neurological damage. The
debate is about at what level it is safe.
With regard to that and there being no evidence, as alleged by
some of the other members in this House, I want to quote from a
study that was done by the neurotoxicologist Donna Mergler at the
University of Quebec. This was an EPA sponsored study of a 306
residents in Quebec. The results suggest that even low levels of
manganese can have deleterious affects. She is quoted as saying:
In large concentrations, airborne manganese does pose a risk.
What we don't know is at what level does it not pose a risk...We
should know a lot more about it before we use it.
I want to spend a few minutes with regard to the whole farcical
history of how MMT has been treated by the government, the
embarrassment that Canada has been put to and, to some extent,
the shame of having to pay that $18 million plus to an American
corporation when in fact in a number of states in the U.S. it is
already banned.
However, because I think it is more important to deal with the
health and environment issues and not so much with the trade
component in this issue, let me go back a bit. In 1992 Canada
committed to applying the precautionary principle. In fact we
have not had a very good history of doing that. The NDP has
strongly advocated that the federal government abide by this
commitment and apply the precautionary principle. To my mind,
this is one of the clearest cases where we should in fact be
doing that.
Mr. David Chatters: Health Canada said they did.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Health Canada: I support your position
that it really has to be looked at. Health Canada has a very
high standard of tolerance for manganese. Dr. Mergler, I think,
would clearly set a lower one.
1810
It would be very nice if this matter could be referred to
committee and if more evidence could be brought forth. The
Mergler study was done in the middle part of 1998. I would
suggest that more studies have been done since then wherein we
might find more clear evidence in this regard.
Let me go back to the precautionary principle. In the bill, the
member for Lac-Saint-Louis has specifically invoked it. I again
want to commend him for that. The preamble states:
And Whereas on the basis of the precautionary principle, it is
imperative for the Parliament of Canada to take immediate action
to protect human health and the environment by banning these
harmful or potentially harmful automotive fuels;
That is very much what the precautionary principle is all about,
a principle that not only Canada but all the world has adopted.
To suggest that we treat MMT in the same category as Tim Hortons
doughnuts is ridiculous.
Let me conclude by encouraging the member for Lac-Saint-Louis to
pursue his cause in this regard. We certainly intend to support
him. Hopefully other members of the House, government members in
particular, will see their way clear to in effect push this
legislation through and ban MMT.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to
applaud the motivations of the member for Lac-Saint-Louis in
bringing forward a bill that aims at improving the environmental
performance of vehicles. The government, with the support of
members like my hon. colleague, has taken and will continue to
take strong action on air pollution.
The particulars of this bill, however, including some of the
environmental as well as economic consequences, make it
impossible for the government to support it. We are, however,
moving forward with programs that have equivalent or even better
environmental results than the ones intended in this bill.
On February 19 the minister announced a 10 year regulatory road
map for cleaner vehicles and fuels which will give Canadians
cleaner air to breathe and will better protect their health from
airborne pollutants. These actions follow a significant clean
air event of 2000, the negotiation of and the signature to the
historic ozone annex to the 1991 Canada-U.S. air quality
agreement.
The ozone annex is a major accomplishment in the transboundary
field. Studies show that up to 90% of the smog we see during the
summer months in central and Atlantic Canada comes from the
United States. Clearly pollution does not need a passport.
The ozone annex contains commitments for action by both
countries and will deliver clean air to up to 16 million
Canadians in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada and millions
more in the 18 American states as they apply the commitment to
reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic
compounds.
Reaching an agreement in 2000 on the ozone annex was an
opportunity Canada did not want to miss. The government's
implementation plan for the annex is a major step forward in
capturing opportunities. The plan represents $120 million of
investment from the Government of Canada for cleaner, healthier
air.
While the ozone annex commitments and benefits are targeted at
Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, the regulatory and other
initiatives unveiled on February 19 will benefit all Canadians.
Over 30 million Canadians will benefit. These are national
benefits because, clearly, clean air is a national issue.
Science tells us that more than 5,000 Canadians die prematurely
each year because of air pollution. Hundreds of thousands suffer
from aggravated asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory
illnesses. Now we are learning that air pollution affects our
health at levels lower than we previously believed. The people
most vulnerable are children and the elderly.
In our election platform and in the Speech from the Throne, the
Government of Canada promised opportunities for all.
Opportunities come in all shapes and sizes. If a smog warning
prevents a child with asthma from playing outside, that is a
missed opportunity. If an elderly person becomes a virtual
shut-in during a heat wave, that too is a lost opportunity.
1815
This investment focuses on action in two key areas,
transportation and industrial sectors, backed up by better air
quality monitoring of air pollution and an improved and expanded
reporting system so that Canadians can follow our progress.
Transportation is the biggest cause of air pollution in Canada.
For that reason, our 10 year regulatory plan of action contains
stringent new low emission standards for passenger cars, light
duty trucks, sport utility vehicles and new standards for the
fuels that power them.
With this package, nitrogen oxide emissions, a key ingredient of
smog, will be reduced by 90% for vehicles of the year 2004 and
beyond. However there is more. The package of regulatory
initiatives will also apply to the off road sector which includes
diesel engines for construction vehicles and farm vehicles, and
gasoline utility engines for snow blowers, lawnmowers and chain
saws. These handy household recreational vehicles and tools
account for approximately 20% of the transportation sector's smog
inventory.
In addition we are also looking at new measures to reduce
sulphur in residential and industrial fuel oils, as well as
taking action on the gasoline additive MTBE.
It is understood that a major tenet of Bill C-254 is the support
for clean, renewable, biomass based fuels such as ethanol. To
this point the government has recently increased its support to
ethanol production through the action plan 2000 to address
climate change. We have committed an additional $150 million in
loan guarantees for construction of biomass to ethanol plants to
be delivered through the Farm Credit Corporation.
It is expected there will be five additional world scale
production facilities commissioned in Canada, producing
approximately 750 million litres of ethanol per year as a direct
result of the loan guarantee program. Additionally, $3 million
has been earmarked to support the promotion of ethanol blended
gasoline and increase consumer demand for this environmentally
friendlier gasoline. We will continue to support ethanol
production through the excise tax relief program.
These actions are in keeping with the government's desire to see
clean, renewable fuel ethanol expand and thrive upon solid
footing in a response to normal market forces.
What the Minister of the Environment unveiled in the 10 year
plan is a major step forward in bringing cleaner air to
Canadians, but the federal government's job is far from finished.
The government wants to engage more Canadians in direct actions
that they can take and to empower them to hold governments to
account to meet clean air commitments.
Our search for scientific understanding for the sources of air
pollution and the solutions we take must continue. The 10 year
plan for cleaner vehicles and fuels is another step along the
road to cleaner air and healthier Canadians.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I see that my own government does not want my bill. In
any case, the bill has died so the government must be quite
happy. I listened to all this panoply of wonderful measures the
government would take. I did not see anything that contradicted
my bill.
I ask the government this. How come the 28 states of the
United States produce ethanol? How come in Minnesota alone
produces more ethanol then we would produce with our 10 year
plan? It is because they have legislated oxygenation of fuel.
It is that simple. If we oxygenate fuel and legislate it, then
the oil companies are bound to do it. It sparks a tremendous
production of oxygenated fuels in the land.
In answer to the member from Prince George, I never said that MMT
kills. I never said anything like that. I said a lot of studies
show that it is an impairment on the motor systems of human
beings. There is lot of evidence to support this.
1820
My colleague from Sarnia disappointed me most of all. He is a
loud speaker for the oil industry from Sarnia. He said we were
comparing manganese with Tim Hortons doughnuts in applying a
precautionary principle. He was not there when Rio was created.
He was not there for the discussions about chemical toxins.
I will mention a number of experts who say manganese is a toxin
and is dangerous to human health. Two famous scientists in
Canada, Dr. John Donaldson and Dr. Frank Labella have done
extensive studies. They have appeared before the
Western Psychiatric Institute
of the University of Pittsburgh, and the health and environment
committee of the U.S. congress on this issue. They appeared
before the U.S. house of representatives in 1990 which had
extensive hearings on MMT.
There are also other doctors, Dr. Kimberley Treinen, Dr. Tim
Gray of England, Dr. William Blazak, who was cited by my
colleague from the NDP, Dr. Donna Mergler, who is carrying out a
study for the U.S. EPA at the University of Montreal and Dr.
Joseph Zayed, who showed that manganese was not good for us and
that it affected the motor system of human beings.
The parliamentary secretary told us how the government is going
to marvellously clean the air but it does not want to address the
MMT issue. By legislating oxygenation of gasoline, we then force
the oil companies to produce natural additives such as ethanol.
It lessens the need for MMT. We are the only industrialized
nation to use MMT.
My colleague from Sarnia mentioned Venezuela, as a developing
nation, uses MMT. He is not correct. I never mentioned that. I
said that industrialized nations that use unleaded gas today do
not use MMT. We are the only guinea pigs in the world that do.
He mentioned that MMT is not used in 30% of the gasoline in the
United States. I got a letter from the U.S. EPA last year. It
said that it used MMT in .002% of all gasoline in the United
States. This officially came from the U.S. EPA.
This is why my bill never contradicted all the various measures
that the government has taken on clean air. On the contrary, we
rejoice about more money being put into the environment. What is
the contradiction between this and discussing a bill which will
oxygenate gasoline and force it by legislation? I do not see
any.
What is the contradiction between what the government is going
to do and saying that by 2005 we will get rid of MMT. We had
many debates in the past on MMT while the legislation was before
us. The only reason it was thrown out was because of trade
reasons. It was not thrown out because of environmental and
health reasons.
It is true that in 1994 our health ministry decided that it was
not harmful to human health when used as an additive. Now the
health ministry has decided to recant itself. It has ordered Dr.
Mergler and other famous scientists in Canada, who are
specialists in manganese, to review the whole issue.
There is a multi-year study being carried out by Health Canada
today on manganese. If it felt that the 1994 study was so
conclusive, it would not have ordered this new study. It is
because time after time scientists are saying “beware”. I do
not say that the proof is conclusive. At the time the battle
over lead was going on, Ethyl Corporation, the purveyors of lead
and the same purveyors of MMT, was telling us how good lead was
for us. It was the same kind of debate. Lead is wonderful.
Now that we have banned lead in Canada, thank the Lord, what do they
do with the lead? It is sold to developing nations and the poor.
People who are using it in their gasoline are being poisoned by
lead. It is the same people today who sell us MMT and tell us
how great MMT is and how good manganese is for us.
Manganese is not doughnuts at Tim Hortons. It is far more
serious.
1825
I believe people like Drs. Mergler and Zayed before I believe my
colleague from Sarnia. I believe the U.S. EPA as well. I do not
know why the government thinks, because it has not thought of it,
that this environmental legislation is not good enough for it.
I am terribly sorry that it is dying here and that we will not
have a chance to debate it in committee, where I would have loved
to have debated it with the parliamentary secretary.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The hour provided for the consideration of
private members' business has now expired. Since this is not a
votable motion, this item is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
COAST GUARD
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last Friday during question period I
asked a question of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The
question was taken by the Deputy Prime Minister. My question was
in regard to maintaining the rescue diving capability of the
Vancouver based coast guard rescue centre.
The possible cancellation of this program had been a news story
on Vancouver television for five nights running. Yet the Deputy
Prime Minister had to take the question under advisement.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced the end of the
program that very same day and informed me by letter, because of
the lack of response I had received during question period.
Then early Sunday morning Paul Sandhu ended upside down in his
car in four feet of water in the Fraser River right across from
the coast guard station. They were on the scene within a minute
of being called. The coast guard crew were only allowed to
provide lighting because the rescue diving program had been
cancelled. The car containing the body of Mr. Sandhu was pulled
out by the RCMP one half hour later.
Much has happened since then. The minister stated to me in the
House of Commons on Tuesday that services would continue to be
provided by the Department of National Defence. It is now clear
that it will not work to drop the coast guard rescue diving in
the Vancouver area and substitute DND from Comox or Esquimalt on
Vancouver Island to do the rescue diving.
The Vancouver coast guard rescue diving program record over the
last six years demonstrates that the vast majority of calls were
responded to within 20 minutes. For example, mobilization and
flight time for DND from Comox is one and a half hours and it is
worse on nights and weekends.
The minister is saying that these are equivalent services when
they are so obviously not. Then on Wednesday the minister issued
a statement that his department would review all of the facts
surrounding the response to the tragic accident that occurred on
Sunday. Until this review is complete and a final decision is
announced, the rescue diving pilot project will remain suspended.
The decision to cancel the rescue divers has all the earmarks of
bureaucratic bungling and bad advice to the minister. I have
been here before with the coast guard initiative to de-staff all
light stations on the B.C. coast. This was finally overturned.
The minister is now in a face saving posture. He must respond
to public pressure to reinstate the rescue diver program. He
does not want to alienate those few in his department who gave
him the bad advice he used to authorize this ill-conceived
decision. None of this is a valid enough reason to expose the
public to further risk by maintaining suspension of service.
This brings me back full circle to where I was on Friday when I
asked if the minister would stop this wrong headed, bureaucratic
initiative now. While a review is under way, the common sense
approach would be to reinstate coast guard rescue diver
capability rather than leave the opportunity for another tragedy.
Every day is important.
I would like an explanation as to why the minister will not
reinstate the program immediately, even though the review is
pending.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question and his interest.
I am pleased to speak today about rescue diving. Before I
continue I certainly wish to state that it is unfortunate that
the automobile accident in Richmond, British Columbia, resulted
in a death on February 18.
My heartfelt sympathies go out to the victim's family and
friends.
1830
Some members today may recall the announcement in 1995 which
preceded the commencement of a two year rescue diving pilot
project at the coast guard hovercraft station at Sea Island in
British Columbia. The pilot project was to determine the
effectiveness of rescue diving as a complement to Canadian Coast
Guard search and rescue.
In 1997, after two years of operating the pilot project, the
project was extended so that more information could be collected
by the coast guard to determine the effectiveness of providing a
rescue diving capability.
In November 2000, after reviewing available information, the
coast guard, primarily out of concern for the safety of the
divers, engaged in the very high risk operations inherent with
these activities, suspended the pilot project.
An evaluation of the pilot project has indicated that the risks
inherent in diving activities were high and that the risks
inherent in rescue diving were even greater. The rescue diving
operations were usually conducted in poor to bad visibility,
rough weather and involved a high degree of uncertainty and the
presence of wreckage in the water.
An analysis of the dives during the six years of the pilot
project indicated that approximately 2,000 dives took place. Of
these, only about three dozen were actual rescue dives. The
remainder of the dives were to conduct underwater hull
inspections and to work on marine navigational buoys. As a
result of the rescue dives two individuals were rescued alive.
Tragically, one of them died of his injuries.
To return to the recent accident on February 18, it is currently
too early and perhaps impossible to determine whether the
life of the individual involved in this accident could indeed
have been saved had the coast guard deployed
divers.
As members are probably aware, the hon. Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans has announced that he has personally asked his deputy
minister and the commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard to
review all the facts surrounding the response to the tragic
accident that occurred on that Sunday in Richmond, British
Columbia, as well as the rescue diving pilot project in Richmond.
The government's priority is to continue to work with its
partners and with its own resources to provide efficient, safe
maritime search and rescue services to Canadians.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: 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 6.32 p.m.)
1030
[English]
APPENDIX
Address
of
The Right Honourable Tony Blair,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland
to
both Houses of Parliament
in the
House of Commons Chamber, Ottawa
on
Thursday, February 22, 2001
The Right Honourable and Mrs. Tony Blair were welcomed by the
Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada, by the
Honourable Dan Hays, Speaker of the Senate and by the Honourable
Peter Milliken, Speaker of the House of Commons.
Hon. Peter Milliken (Speaker of the House of Commons):
Order, please. I would like to call upon the Right Hon. Jean
Chrétien, the Prime Minister of Canada, to now make his remarks.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
hon. senators, judges, members of parliament, ladies and
gentlemen, it is my very great pleasure to introduce the Right
Hon. Tony Blair.
Prime Minister, you are about to address the 37th Parliament of
Canada, men and women of diverse backgrounds and sharp
ideological differences, people who have a very hard time
agreeing on anything, but you need not worry about our manners
today.
I think I can speak for all of my colleagues when I say that any
leader whose resumé includes winning the largest parliamentary
majority in over 60 years can expect our undivided attention.
Your historic 1997 election victory was, for many Canadians,
their first introduction to Tony Blair, but it was really just
the most spectacular result of the skilful leadership you have
shown in remaking your party and in redefining the terms of
political discourse in Great Britain and throughout the liberal
western democracies.
In common with so many of us who have gone into politics, Mr.
Blair trained to enter the law. And the law is in his family as
well. Madam Cherie Blair, who is with us, is an accomplished
barrister in her own right and, by the way, she is the only woman
I can call chérie without my wife giving me that look.
Beginning with his election in 1993 as a Labour member of
parliament, Mr. Blair has shown a keen commitment both to the
welfare of his constituents and to addressing the broader issues
that challenge government.
1035
His considerable eloquence and his mastery of issues are widely
known and respected. His ability to project the modern vitality
of Britain on the world stage has become a personal trademark and
his steadfast commitment to peace in Northern Ireland has earned
him international praise. It is a cause in which Canada has been
pleased to play a role.
[Translation]
Prime Minister Blair also played a key role in the development
of a political movement we know now as the third way, a way that
is open to all progressive governments in the context of the new
information—and knowledge-based global economy, a middle way
between total confidence in market forces and heavy dependency
on state interventions, a way that seeks to encourage the spirit
of initiative and prosperity, while ensuring that the benefits
of economic growth are shared and no one is left out.
The Prime Minister and I often share the same views in this
area. I have presented to him what I call the Canadian way, and
he in turn has explained to me how his government successfully
creates truly made-in-Britain solutions to the challenges it
faces. I am sure our dialogue and exchanges of views on this
will continue during this visit.
[English]
This is just a 21st century example of the common ground that
has long characterized the relationship between our nations,
common ground embodied by this honourable place and our embrace
of the Westminster tradition; by our willingness to shed blood
together in the defence of freedom and justice; by our
co-operation on so many issues at the UN, in NATO, at the WTO and
in the Commonwealth; and by our resolve to renew and revitalize
our transatlantic relationship.
Prime Minister, in addressing this special joint session, you
join a distinguished company of British prime ministers of the
modern era, a company that was led off by the Right Hon. Winston
Churchill. If I could borrow from the master of words:
There are many in Canada who listen to the debates of this
honourable House and wonder that so much could be said by so many
but understood by so few.
Today, we welcome the opportunity for some well chosen words
from a worthy successor.
Ladies and gentlemen, a dynamic leader, an accomplished
statesman and a very great friend of Canada, I present the Right
Hon. Tony Blair.
Applause
Right Hon. Tony Blair (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland): Mr. Speaker, Mr.
Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Prime Minister, hon. members of the
Senate and members of the House of Commons, thank you so much for
that kind reception. I can truthfully say, Mr. Speaker, Sir,
that is the only time I have ever been in a House of Commons and
got a polite reception.
May I also say to my good friend and colleague, Jean Chrétien,
thank you for that most generous, too generous introduction. If
I can repay the compliment to you, you have been not just a good
friend to my country but you are someone respected throughout the
entire free world.
1040
You mentioned my large election victory. Well, I think there
are a few lessons people can learn from you as well, but that is
the last comment of any sort I will make on elections today.
May I say too that it is a rare honour to be invited to address
you here where the common bond between our two nations is
symbolized.
Of course I think it is important to point out that ours is not
a relationship built only on shared history and sentiment. I know
that Canadian investment in Britain has grown by something like
50% in the last six years, making you the fourth largest investor
in our country. Britain is the second largest investor in
Canada. Last year alone, British companies committed more than
$13 billion Canadian here. The country Voltaire likened to
“quelques arpents de neige” and Edward Gibbon to ancient
Germany, is today for Britain, for us as we look at you, a high
tech hub of the global economy.
You are deservedly world leaders now in the new economy, but of
course there are ties deeper than commerce alone can ever be.
I have just seen the famous photograph of Sir Winston Churchill
in Mr. Speaker's office and he resolved for me, incidentally, one
of the great puzzles I have always had with that very famous
photograph. I always wondered why Churchill looked so stern and
why he was leaning forward in that way. He has resolved this
difficulty for me. Apparently when Karsh was taking the
photograph of him, Churchill was smoking a cigar and was not
paying attention. He would not pay attention to what was
happening around him and finally Karsh leaned forward and
snatched the cigar out of his mouth, which is how he got the look
of Churchill looking stern and disciplined.
It was almost 60 years ago that Churchill addressed this
parliament in Europe's darkest hour. What shines through that
speech is his absolute conviction that at that dark hour,
Canada's support would be unwavering. It was not for nothing
that Churchill called Canada the linchpin of the English speaking
world. Some things change, but some things remain constantly
with us.
I can pay Canada no greater compliment than this. All nations
have their reputations. As Prime Minister I deal with many
crises, often of an international nature, but I know, and I bet I
speak for most of the prime ministers of my acquaintance in
Britain and abroad, that when we are told the Canadians are in on
the act, whatever the forum for decision, there is a sense of
relief, the clouds part a little and the confidence grows. People
know that your word is your bond and, what is more, what you do
you do well. It is not a bad reputation to have. Well done.
Keep it for always.
It was, I guess, the Atlantic that brought Britain and Canada
together and gave us a maritime history. Trade was its common
thread.
The story of our two nations began in 1497 when Henry VII funded
an Italian adventurer to open a trade route to Asia by sailing
west and instead he landed, as you know, in Newfoundland. The
following centuries were a tale of exploration and new frontiers.
For Britons down the centuries, Canada has been and remains a
great land of opportunity. By 1870 British Canadians accounted
for 2.1 million out of a total population of 3.6 million. British
engineers and investors helped build the canals and railways that
helped link Canada east to west.
In 1867 the British North America Act brought Canada and
Canadian provinces together in a Confederation: the first
dominion and the first federal constitution in the British
Empire. Britain and Canada still share a sovereign and the best
traditions of parliamentary democracy. Our new human rights act,
for example, echoes the charter of rights and freedoms that you,
Jean, pioneered as Pierre Trudeau's justice minister, but perhaps
it is our shared experience of defending our freedom and our way
of life that forms the strongest bond.
1045
The British will never forget that Canada stood by our side
throughout both world wars. Nearly 10% of the total Canadian
population served in the first world war: Ypres in 1915; the
Somme, where the brave Newfoundlanders lost 730 out of 801 men in
30 minutes; and Vimy Ridge in 1917.
In the second world war Canada's record is no less crucial. Over
a million Canadian men and women served in the armed forces on
the frontline in the liberation of Italy, France and the Low
Countries. Two Canadian battalions were lost in the defence of
Hong Kong.
It is interesting that both Canada and then Britain, following
your example, recently announced compensation schemes to honour
our Far East Prisoners of War. Roosevelt and Churchill signed
the Atlantic Charter on a warship in Newfoundland bay, and
Mackenzie King hosted the two crucial Quebec conferences in 1943
and 1944 on the war and the shape of the peace.
The presence of Canadian and British forces in continental
Europe helped win the cold war. They have served together in
Korea, Cyprus, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor and even Sierra Leone.
Yes, it took a Canadian general to win the confidence of both
sides in Northern Ireland over the most sensitive issue of all,
the issue of arms decommissioning. I would like, if I might, to
pay tribute to General John de Chastelain for what he has done
and what he and other Canadians, including your Prime Minister,
Jean Chrétien, continue to do for peace in Northern Ireland.
[Translation]
Since the days of the British Empire, Great Britain and Canada
have changed. Canada has incorporated two great European
civilizations into a bilingual country enriched by the
contributions of other cultures, firstly, obviously, by those of
its aboriginal nations.
Canada today is turning increasingly not only to the west but to
the east as well, to the Pacific and to Asia, the origins of
half of Canada's immigrants in the past decade. Great Britain
too has diversified.
Our democracies are changing and adapting, utilizing the
tolerance characteristic of them to create multicultural and
dynamic societies.
Shared objectives have arisen from the values we hold jointly.
Yesterday, I read last month's Speech from the Throne and the
reactions that followed it in the Commons. I was struck by the
similarity of our political debates: technology in the age of
information and education, the environment, increased growth and
more jobs.
[English]
We share something else. You are that part of North America
closest in values and traditions to Europe, and we are that part
of Europe closest to North America. We both are part of and we
strongly support the transatlantic alliance, Europe and North
America together. I wish to speak about that to you.
I have a belief, formed in theory but now far more powerfully
reinforced after four years' practical experience as Prime
Minister, that where the two sides of the Atlantic stand together
the world is a more secure, stable and prosperous planet. We
have our disagreements, of course we do, but they simply
evaporate in importance when put alongside our common interests
and values.
We know that what binds us together is a common belief in the
values of institutionalized democracy, the benefits of the rule
of law, the primacy of the market as the engine for growth, the
belief in a strong and inclusive society to correct the market's
injustices, the creative power of individualism and the ultimate
need to protect human rights.
1050
This is the core package, if you like, of our political canon,
what we believe in. What separates us from others is that we
believe in the whole package. We do not believe that you can
have the market without society, or human rights separated from
the rule of law, or anything less than all the attributes of
democracy. Our experience tells us too, does it not, that when
people are given the opportunity freely to choose, this model of
political organization is the one that they choose.
When we stand together, both sides of the Atlantic, either in
situations of conflict, or of trade or in trying to regulate the
vagaries of global finance or indeed in issues of human rights,
we most often prevail and we do so on the basis of what is right
and what is just.
Yet despite the evidence of history and our own present
prosperity, some will question this.
I speak to you first and foremost as the Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom. British, proud to be so, truly ambitious for
Britain, determined to see its potential fulfilled.
I speak to you as a committed Atlanticist. I speak to you also
as a European, unshakeable in my view that Britain's future is as
a leading player in Europe, a powerful force for good and a force
for reform inside the European Union.
There are those in my country who say it is not possible to be
all those things. You can have Europe or you can have North
America but you cannot have both. Britain has to choose.
It is an article of my political faith that I refuse point blank
to do so. We will have the best of both worlds. We will give up
neither relationship. We will make them both work, and we will
make them work not just for Britain but for the sake of the
transatlantic alliance itself. That alliance is of course most
clear in defence and our commitment to NATO is fundamental.
We have had the good sense to adapt NATO to 21st century
security tasks. The threat to our own territory may have all but
disappeared. But the threats, as you know, to our interests
persist, from turmoil within nations such as Yugoslavia, from
terrorism, and from the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons. NATO is our organization of choice for
dealing with these threats. No organization is stronger, no
military alliance more integrated. Nothing surpasses NATO's
strength or its effectiveness.
Today Canadian and British peacekeepers work side by side in the
Balkans, sometimes under a Canadian Commander and sometimes under
a British one, within NATO.
It is NATO that reversed the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and set
in train the events which led to Milosevic being ousted and has
given the prospect of a decent peace accord. On our own, Europe
could not have achieved that. It took the combination of Europe
and North America, acting together in NATO, to deliver on that
goal.
The initiative on European defence should be seen in that
context. It is limited to crisis management, peacekeeping and
humanitarian tasks. It requires the sovereign decision of each
nation to participate in each operation, as indeed with the
United Nations. It is not therefore a standing army. There will
be no separate EU military planning structures, and it applies
only where NATO has chosen not to act collectively.
1055
It has, however, two potential benefits. First, it allows
Europe, for example, in crises on or within Europe's border, to
act where the U.S. does not wish to. Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 is
such a case in point. Second, it puts pressure on Europe to
increase its defence capability, something long desired by our
allies in North America. Done right it will strengthen NATO and
NATO will remain the cornerstone of our collective security.
The other crucial area for the transatlantic alliance is trade.
Around the world there is simultaneously the desire for greater
local autonomy and nations coming together for their own common
good. Those two things happen almost simultaneously. In the
U.K., for example, we have found a way through devolution to
create a new partnership for the U.K. between England, Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland.
Yet at the same time, as greater devolution occurs within
nations, countries are voluntarily coming together to form
regional groups. The EU may be the most integrated, but in North
America you have NAFTA; in the South, Mercosur; and in Asia,
ASEAN, APEC and so on.
In my view these two trends are healthy and go together: devolve
where possible, integrate where necessary. The key, however, is
to ensure that these regional blocs do not become inward looking
or closed to other parts of the outside world. If we simply
exchange the darker side of nationalism for conflict between
regional blocs, we will have gained nothing.
The EU and NAFTA are the world's largest trading blocs and the
world's biggest free traders. NAFTA is the European Union's most
important trading partner. In 1999 EU exports to NAFTA were £137
billion and imports from NAFTA were £121 billion. Yet relations
are not as they should be.
Proposals for a transatlantic free trade area in 1996 came to
nothing. The Transatlantic Economic Partnership of 1998 has not
been the success we all hoped for at the time. Despite ever
closer economic links our trade relations, as you all well know,
have become bedevilled by disputes over issues like beef and
bananas, and damaged both our interests.
We now have an opportunity for a new start, however. The
European Union is engaged in a radical program of economic
reform, and not before time. We are committed to opening up
markets, reducing the burden of regulation, and encouraging
enterprise and new technologies. In March at the summit in
Stockholm we will take this a step further forward. We want to
work more closely with our partners on this side of the Atlantic,
including the new U.S. Administration, to promote free trade.
I believe, therefore, that we need to take steps to improve
greatly the EU-NAFTA relationship, and I propose the following.
First, we should agree to an EU-NAFTA political declaration of
intent on trade.
Ninety-eight per cent of our trade is trouble free. We cannot
allow the remaining 2% to sour trading relations in the way it
has. We should aim to break the logjam by the June EU summit in
Gothenburg. We will pursue this as Britain with our partners and
the Commission, and we will discuss at Stockholm in March how we
achieve this by that June summit.
This should then be reinforced by an EU-NAFTA commitment to go
further within the WTO framework to break down non-tariff
barriers as well. In areas like insurance and professional
services, but also others, liberalization is massively, I
believe, in our joint interests on both sides of the Atlantic.
At Gothenburg we should also agree to a statement of principles
as the basis for launching a new WTO round at Doha in November.
It is time that we move. We should agree to a joint commitment
to remove trade barriers for the least developed countries.
That means duty free and quota free access for everything but
arms. It is frustrating, and it is wrong, that it is taking so
long within the European Union to bring this excellent initiative
to fruition. Those developing countries need our help and we
should give it to them. We should consider how we improve
radically the forum for solving future transatlantic trade
problems before full blown WTO litigation sets in.
1100
Finally on trade I just want to say this last point. It is time
I think that we started to argue vigorously and clearly as to why
free trade is right. It is the key to jobs for our people, to
prosperity and actually to development in the poorest parts of
the world. The case against it is misguided and, worse, unfair.
However sincere the protests, they cannot be allowed to stand in
the way of rational argument. We should start to make this case
with force and determination.
[Translation]
In addition, the transatlantic link must not be limited to
security and trade. There are other challenges: organized
crime, terrorism, the environment, population movements. We
are all affected by the issues, good or bad, that concern our
planet. A more effective transatlantic alliance will help us
find better solutions. It is up to us to see to it.
[English]
My friends, my apology for my French pronunciation. There is a
story about that which is a bit naughty, so I suppose I had
better not tell it to the Canadian parliament.
A Voice: We want to hear it.
Right Hon. Tony Blair: Well, okay. I invited Lionel
Jospin, the French Prime Minister, to my constituency one time
and we did a joint press conference live on television. I was
asked the question in French whether I was envious of Lionel
Jospin's success and policies. I meant to reply that I was very
envious of the magnificent positions he had taken on different
policy issues. Instead, I informed the startled French public
that I decidedly know Jospin in many different positions.
I think we will do most of our press conference in English, if
that is all right. It was quite hard to recover my reputation in
France after that.
The strength of our relationship, Britain and Canada, may
originate with our history, but what I want to say to you from
the depth of my heart is that it does not depend on our history.
There are present, real and substantial bonds of mutual interest
and endeavour that unite our nations. If these bonds deepen
still further, as I believe they should and could, it does not
impact on us alone. It is greatly to the benefit of all. The
world we live in today moves ever closer together. At least for
the most developed nations, prosperity and opportunity have never
been greater, but the global threats are also growing: nuclear
proliferation, environmental degradation, fundamentalism and the
potential for financial collapse in one continent to trigger
collapse in another.
My message to you is very simple, and it is this. In that new
world, more dangerous, moving closer together under the threats
and also the possibilities of globalization and technology, both
of us with the U.S., both of us with Europe, both of us in the
Commonwealth, both of us also with the Pacific and Asia, occupy a
special place.
1105
As a result of that unusual network of relationships that our
history has bequeathed to us, we should use that power and
influence to further the transatlantic alliance. It is the rock,
ultimately, on which our security and prosperity is based, and I
believe the world's. It places a heavy responsibility on us. It
is one that I believe we can justly discharge with pride.
Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister, and ladies and gentlemen, my most
profound thanks to you for this invitation. It has genuinely
been one of the proudest moments of my political life, and long
live the friendship between our two nations. Thank you.
Applause
Hon. Dan Hays (Speaker of the Senate): Prime Minister
Blair, Mrs. Blair, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister and
distinguished guests, in the name of the Senate and as well for
all who have heard you today, I thank you, Prime Minister, for
your address to the Parliament of Canada.
[Translation]
Your first official visit to Canada also perpetuates a tradition
which was upheld by five of your predecessors and which began in
1941, when Prime Minister Winston Churchill addressed
parliament, as the Prime Minister mentioned.
[English]
The visit recognizes and reinforces the remarkable bond that
exists between our countries. Our relationship is a longstanding
and particularly important one. The trust and understanding
between our countries are supported and sustained, as you have
observed, by our trade, family ties, culture and our common
practice of democracy. In this context I observe that of special
interest, in particular to many in the Senate, has been your
government's initiative, as you mentioned, to devolve its power
and to bring about changes in the House of Lords.
[Translation]
Our relations have always been marked by great mutual trust.
And, particularly in the last century, during wars and through
numerous diplomatic missions, we have supported each other.
[English]
Sometimes the bond between our countries is such that we need to
remind ourselves not to take it for granted and to remember just
how important it is.
As a representative of Alberta, I know well of our co-operation.
The United Kingdom has been a source of investment needed to
develop our natural resources, and in recent times the United
Kingdom has in turn received Canadian investment and expertise in
the development of its natural resources in the North Sea and on
shore.
[Translation]
After the United States, the United Kingdom is our main source
of direct investment abroad, the main destination for Canadian
capital abroad and our largest market for tourism and trade
services.
1110
[English]
Great Britain's defence forces have been a part of military life
in my home province, for example, by virtue of exchanges and
training of soldiers at Canadian Forces Base Suffield. They are
part of our tradition of co-operation such that Suffield is
Britain's principal high intensity conflict training area. Over
800 Britons live at the base resulting in over 4,000 trainee
visits each year.
The Great Britain of your time, with which we proudly share so
many traditions and values, will we know continue to flourish.
With the attention and care of those who serve in our
parliaments, we will remain principal allies and trading
partners.
Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your contribution to renewing
the close ties between our countries by your words and by your
deeds.
Applause
Hon. Peter Milliken (Speaker of the House of Commons): Mr.
Prime Minister, on behalf of the members of the House of Commons,
I would like to thank you for having addressed us today.
Canadians across our country are delighted that you have come
here. The members of the House of Commons and of the Senate, who
have gathered in such large numbers to hear your speech today,
are delighted that you have come. Your fellow Oxonians, both
here in parliament and across the country, are very proud of you
and very pleased that you have come, Sir.
[Translation]
Much has been said and written about the close relations between
our two countries. There was a time when the history of Great
Britain was our history, and many of your country's traditions
are still maintained in Canada.
The model for all parliaments, Westminster, continues to make
its presence felt among us today, not just in our procedural
system, but more tangibly in the form of the Speaker's chair.
This chair was a gift from Great Britain, a reproduction of the
one in Westminster. Its dais, decorated with the Royal coat of
arms, was sculpted from a single block of oak taken from the
roof of Westminster Hall, which dates back to 1397.
[English]
While we are ever mindful of our shared history, I believe that
the friendship between our two countries now rests on our shared
present.
Although your address to parliament today was certainly a very
special event, Prime Minister, it is but one of the myriad
contacts taking place today between the United Kingdom and
Canada. Not only are our nations regularly involved in formal
economic, cultural, technological and parliamentary exchanges, we
also like to stay in touch on a much more basic level.
We are constantly listening to each other's music, watching each
other's television programs and visiting one another. Visits are
less frequent in the winter. While I can only assume that “Cool
Britannia”, as I have heard today's United Kingdom dubbed, is
more a cultural than climactic commentary, I must applaud your
hardiness, Prime Minister, in visiting Ottawa in February.
[Translation]
As the former president of the Canada—United Kingdom
Parliamentary Association, I often had the honour to visit
Westminster, accompanied by many of my colleagues, in order to
learn more about your parliamentary procedures. I hope that
these exchanges will continue in the future.
[English]
In closing, please accept my thanks on behalf of all members of
the House of Commons for having spoken to us today. We will long
remember your presence here, and we hope that you will return
soon for another Canadian visit. Merci beaucoup.
Applause