37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 020
CONTENTS
Friday, February 23, 2001
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1000
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-9. Second reading
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1005
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1010
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1015
1020
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1025
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1030
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1035
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1040
1045
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1050
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| AKD INTERNATIONAL
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1100
| ESTONIA
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| AVIATION
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| LONG DISTANCE CHARGES
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| CANADA CUSTOMS
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1105
| NUNAVUT TRADE SHOW
|
| Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| JOB CREATION
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| HOCKEY
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| SRI LANKA
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1110
| OIL INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| NATALIE MACMASTER
|
| Mr. Rodger Cuzner |
| MEMBER FOR WINDSOR WEST
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| GUIDE-SCOUT WEEK
|
| Mr. Serge Marcil |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1115
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| FUNDRAISING
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1120
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1125
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| COAST GUARD
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1130
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
1135
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| HEALTH
|
1140
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
1145
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| PENSIONS
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| SOCIAL SECURITY
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
1150
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| SOFTWOOD LUMBER
|
| Mr. Jean-Yves Roy |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Jean-Yves Roy |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
1155
| Hon. David Collenette |
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| VOLUNTEERS
|
| Mr. John McCallum |
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1200
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-13. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1205
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-9. Second reading
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1210
1215
1220
1225
| Division on motion deferred
|
| MARINE LIABILITY ACT
|
| Bill S-2. Second reading
|
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| Mr. Ovid Jackson |
1230
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1235
1240
1245
1250
1255
1300
1305
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
1310
1315
1320
1325
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1330
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| DIVORCE ACT
|
| Bill C-237. Second Reading
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1335
1340
| Mr. John Maloney |
1345
1350
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1355
1400
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1405
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1410
| Mr. Larry Spencer |
1415
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1420
| Apenndix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 020
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 23, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1000
[English]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
The House resumed from February 22 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be now read a second time
and referred to a committee
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak this
morning. I have but a few moments left to discuss Bill C-9
before the House.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate you for the deportment
which you brought to this Chamber yesterday while you were
presiding over the official visit of the British Prime Minister.
I must say that you brought great humility, humour and your usual
candour to the Chamber. You certainly carried yourself well in
that role.
1005
With respect to the bill, this is a piece of legislation that
will go from this Chamber to the committee where there will be an
opportunity to review some of the prevalent sections of the
legislation itself.
We have been led to believe that the changes brought about by
the bill, which, as I mentioned yesterday, resulted from a
decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal, will in fact set this
matter right.
The past election demonstrated the need to examine in greater
detail this issue of a permanent voters list. There were
numerous occasions where many members of parliament encountered
constituents who arrived at the polling booth and were sadly not
able to vote. This of course comes at a time when there is
declining participation in elections. Perhaps one of the most
important exercises in the examination of the legislation is to
ensure that this situation does not continue. We must ensure
that we are encouraging not discouraging people from taking part
in this important democratic process of voting.
Although this is a bill that is quite procedural in nature,
there is a fundamental principle behind it that goes to the very
heart of parliamentary democracy, that is, encouraging voters to
participate in the electoral processes.
The definition with respect to the number of candidates that
must run in an election to allow a party to have the official
designation on the ballot is addressed. The situation
surrounding donations and the blackouts that occur during
elections is also addressed, so that information as to results in
some regions is not brought into play as a factor in another
region because of the width and breadth of this country and the
attached time zones.
The Progressive Conservative Party, at this point, is certainly
supportive of the legislation. We look forward to full
participation at the committee level to bring forward possible
amendments that would improve and enhance the bill which is our
role as members of parliament.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member referred to voters lists and some of the problems
we had with them. I think the hon. member will know that this
was the first election under which we had permanent voters lists.
I think all members would probably concur that there was
substantive difficulty.
I wonder whether the hon. member has any comment with regard to
the propriety and the feasibility of a good voters list using a
permanent model, given what he knows from his own experience
about what happened.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my
remarks, I think that is perhaps the underlying most important
aspect of the bill.
The difficulty, as the hon. member is clearly aware, is the
nature of this country, the high level of mobility and the number
of students, for example, who are attending university. The
permanency of the residency I suppose is the very issue.
What I have found and I think the common experience of many
members was the need for the checking and what was traditionally
done prior to elections of having individuals go out and ensure
the veracity of the current list, which, to my way of thinking,
is tantamount to repeating the way the process was before.
This leads to questions as to how permanent the list is and
whether we should examine the list by going back to the old way
of doing things, which was to simply, with ample time prior to an
election, going out and enumerating and finding out where people
are and ensuring that the lists are correct.
1010
Given the enormity of that job, it is natural that there will be
some mistakes. There will never be perfection in this system,
but to suggest somehow that a permanent list will capture
everyone would be fooling ourselves, given the high levels of
mobility. The enumeration process will be relied upon heavily in
most instances, and it is a return to a system that we have had
for many years.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have spoken in the
House since the resumption of parliament, but it is my first time
participating in debate. I congratulate you on your election as
Speaker. I very much respect and appreciate the job that you did
as Deputy Speaker in the last parliament and I look forward to
your favourable rulings in this parliament.
We are continuing the debate on Bill C-9 from yesterday when
unfortunately the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle made reference to
a private member's bill that I introduced in the House. My
private member's bill would seek to change the current number of
members required to be designated as an official party in the
House. The proposal in my bill is that a party would require 10%
of the seats in the House of Commons. I made the proposal on the
basis that I thought it was a reasonable amount. If a party
cannot achieve 10% representation then the benefits that accrue
to official parties ought not to be available.
In other words we use taxpayer money to assist us as official
parties in carrying out our duties in the House of Commons and,
as in the case of the official opposition, holding the government
accountable for its actions. I am not speaking about benefits
available to each member of parliament to represent his or her
constituents. I am not proposing that should in any way be
changed or altered whatsoever, but I am referring to the parties
in general.
The current rule is 12. If a party does not have 12 members it
does not get those benefits. My proposal is that 12 is too low a
number. It is less than 5%. My proposal is 10%. It was only a
proposal.
If the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle would like to amend my
bill and suggest 5%, I would be open to that. I do not think it
is unreasonable to say that the benefits of being an official
party and the financial resources made available to it will be
allowed if the party has 5% of the seats in the House of Commons.
Surely that is not too onerous a level to achieve.
What I take particular offence to is the manner in which the
member, quite frankly, misled and misrepresented my bill and my
position. First, let me make it very clear that he went to great
lengths to say that this was official Canadian Alliance policy
when in fact it is a private member's bill. He has been in the
House long enough that he ought to know the difference. He
should not misrepresent my private member's bill or misrepresent
the official policies of the Canadian Alliance.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am becoming somewhat concerned about the usage of the
terminology misrepresented and misled in the context of the
member referring to another member in this place.
The Speaker: I do not think the hon. member has stepped
over the line yet and I am sure that he will not. He knows the
rules and I think he will exercise judicious restraint.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Indeed I will, Mr. Speaker. That is
exactly the type of favourable ruling I was referring to.
What I am saying is that it is a private member's bill which I
introduced to engage members in debate on what number of MPs a
party ought to have to receive the resources provided to
officially recognized parties.
I do not think 5% or 10% is an unrealistic number to have.
However, I was pointing out that the member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle tried to link that to the Canadian Alliance
when in fact it was not fair for him to do so.
1015
I took further offence when I reviewed Hansard today.
Unfortunately I was not in the House to draw attention to the
fact that the hon. member was misrepresenting my position.
According to Hansard he made, quite frankly, vicious
personal attacks on members of our caucus. He referred to us as
Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble people and then made
disparaging comments about members of our caucus who wear cowboy
hats.
I am sure there are many farmers and ranchers in the riding of
the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle who wear cowboy hats. Is he
saying that they are somehow prehistoric people? That is what he
was insinuating about members who have been elected to the House
of Commons to represent their constituents.
It raises this question: Why was he engaging in that type of
gutter politics and smear tactics? He was doing so to distract
attention from the issue. He does not want to engage in the
debate on whether or not 5% or 10% is a reasonable number to have
in the House of Commons in order to receive official party
status. He therefore engages in the longstanding New Democratic
Party technique of trying to distract attention from the issue by
engaging in personal attacks. It is highly inappropriate.
The member was confusing my private member's bill with Bill C-9.
Bill C-9 is about the elections. It is about getting one's name
on a ballot, what would constitute an official party and being
able to put a party's name on the ballot. I am in no way opposed
to the number of members being 12. I would support it being two.
If two people want to run in a federal election and call
themselves a party, they ought to be able to do that. Whatever
rules and privileges we can extend to people who are running in
elections, we ought to accommodate that and encourage people to
participate and engage in the democratic process.
I want to highlight that my private member's bill in no way has
anything to do with that. My bill is after the fact. Once the
election is held, once we have accommodated people as much as
possible to engage in the democratic process, to call themselves
parties and to participate in elections, once the people have
spoken, then we need to apply a certain standard. Indeed, right
now we do; it is 12 MPs. I am simply suggesting it should be a
percentage, and that 5% or 10% would not be unreasonable.
The purpose in that, further to what I have already said, is to
eliminate official party representation in the House of fringe or
marginal parties, such as the New Democratic Party, and to stop
financial resources from accruing to them. If there is any doubt
about that, we had the privilege yesterday in the House of being
addressed by the prime minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair, the
leader of the labour party. I would like to quote from his
speech. He said:
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.
Clearly the opinion of the leader of the labour party of Great
Britain, the prime minister of Great Britain, is that the NDP's
opposition to expanding our free trade zones is irrational and,
in his words, misguided and unfair. That just highlights and
underscores the type of fringe, marginal party that the hon.
member for Regina—Qu'Appelle represents. My private member's
bill was simply designed to prevent resources from accruing to
fringe parties.
1020
I will also take the opportunity to criticize the Liberal
government. If we are interested in electoral reform, why would
we not extend the discussion and the scope of the bill to include
Senate reform?
For decades regional alienation has been occurring in the
country, and part of the reason is because of the poor democratic
processes that are in place. We could undertake a lot of
initiatives to improve democracy and improve the ability of
members of parliament to represent their constituents. I will
not get into all the things we could do in the House of Commons
but I do want to talk about the Senate.
Why would we not elect our senators? It would obviously be more
democratic and more representative of the will of the people.
Senators supposedly represent people in the provinces they come
from. They debate and review legislation that comes from the
House. However, to have those people appointed is an affront to
the very regions they are supposed to represent.
I have taken the initiative of writing to the former premier of
Saskatchewan, Mr. Roy Romanow, on a number of occasions over the
past several years while he was still premier. I urged him to
enact a senatorial election act that could be done in conjunction
with municipal or provincial elections in order to minimize cost
and ensure efficiency. It would allow the people of Saskatchewan
to choose who they wanted to represent them in the Senate as
opposed to the current practice in which the Prime Minister
appoints friends and people who have benefited the Liberal Party
in some way. This is not a unique or even novel idea.
Alberta has a senatorial election act and has elected senators
in waiting. Unfortunately the Prime Minister refuses to respect
the democratic will of the people of Alberta and appoints people
he has chosen to represent them in the Senate. Ideally we need
to reform the system so that senators who are elected
automatically become senators. However, as a first step, surely
the Prime Minister could recognize and respect the democratic
will of the people of Alberta and appoint their chosen and
elected representatives, Bert Brown and Ted Morton, to the
Senate.
My purpose in writing the premier of Saskatchewan was to
encourage him to enact a similar piece of legislation in his
province so that we could elect senators in waiting and increase
the pressure on the Prime Minister to abandon his undemocratic
ways and start appointing democratically elected senators.
Unfortunately the premier of Saskatchewan at the time, a New
Democrat, refused to accede to my request and implement such an
act. That was most regrettable, but it underscores some of the
hypocrisy in the New Democratic Party. The member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle talks in the House about fairness and trying
to improve the democratic process and yet the former New
Democratic premier of Saskatchewan would not enact a senatorial
election act that would let people choose who they want to
represent them in the Senate. It is quite unbelievable.
I have taken the initiative to write to the new premier in
Saskatchewan and I am waiting for his reply. I hope he is more
favourable toward my suggestion. I hope he will be more
democratic and try to assist the democratic process in Canada,
something the former NDP premier was unwilling to do.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice the righteous
indignation the hon. member cloaks himself in when he speaks of
hypocrisy and of his efforts to bring about an elected Senate.
1025
I hope that would include the newest member of the Senate under
the reform alliance banner. In that other place, I would suggest
it is only appropriate that, in keeping with official party
stance, he would step down and run in British Columbia. I would
hope the hon. member would encourage him to do so.
I also must refer briefly to the member's private member's bill,
Bill C-273, in which the Progressive Conservative Party is
referred to as a fringe or marginal party. I take exception to
that and think the hon. member, in all humility, might rethink
the wording of the bill.
The Progressive Conservative Party, as we all know, goes back to
the very origins of the country. It has run candidates in every
election since Confederation and has run candidates in every
region of the country. I ask the hon. member to reflect with
some hubris upon the roots of his own party, the Reform Party.
When his party first arrived in the Chamber many people used the
same unkind words, fringe party or marginal party. From those
humble roots his party has now achieved official party status and
has become the official opposition.
I caution the hon. member to perhaps choose his words carefully
and reflect a little bit more broadly on the origins of his own
party when he starts castigating and using that type of
inflammatory language in the Chamber.
I would be very interested to hear his comments.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised a
couple of questions. First, of course, he drew attention to the
fact that the former president of the Progressive Conservative
Party, Gerry St. Germain, a very respected and noble Senator, is
now a member of the Canadian Alliance caucus. We are very proud
and happy about that.
The question though was whether, in keeping with our official
party policy, I would encourage Senator St. Germain to resign his
position and seek to be elected as a Senator. I very much
encouraged him to do so, and he himself has offered to do that.
Should the Prime Minister be willing to commit himself to
appointing the democratically elected senator, Senator St.
Germain would resign his seat and seek to be elected. I hope
that adequately addresses the question from the hon. member.
The second point the hon. member made is that my private
member's bill describes not only the NDP but the Progressive
Conservative Party as fringe parties. I think he has a
legitimate point. Although the NDP is very marginal and has
ideas that are, in the words of the prime minister of Great
Britain, misguided, unfair and irrational, I think that meets the
definition of fringe.
On the other hand, I agree with the hon. member with regard to
the Progressive Conservative Party. It has a proud tradition in
this parliament. Unfortunately it has lost favour with the
general public to quite a degree, although its principles and
policies are very much consistent with our own. Very often
members of both parties find themselves in agreement with each
other.
Indeed, the PC Party does not meet the definition of fringe
party. My bill perhaps is unfair in the sense that there is a
lot of common ground between our parties and our principles. It
does not make sense that such good progressive ideas are held in
two parties divided. Seeking to find more and better ways of
co-operating and working together against the regressive policies
of the Liberal Party should be encouraged, and I would certainly
welcome that.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I notice the member took offence to some of the things I
was saying. People who are watching and listening today should
realize that the Alliance Party, through the hon. member, has
introduced a bill stating that an official party should have at
least 10% of the members of the House, which is 31 members, or
should have members in three provinces. The Bloc, of course,
comes from only one province.
The member would classify as a fringe party 63 members of
parliament: all the Bloc, all the Conservatives, all the New
Democrats, the voices of one-third of the Canadian people. Those
three parties received about 33% of the vote.
Is that democracy? Is that inclusiveness? Is that empowering
people? Is that what the Reform Party and the Alliance Party
stand for? Do they stand for excluding the voice of the people
in the House of Commons?
1030
There is the party with a former leader who went across the
country talking about the equality of people, saying “Let the
people in. Let the west in. Let the people speak. Let us treat
everyone equally”. Now those members have a bill in the House
of Commons that would mute the voices of one-third of the people
in the country.
People should know where the reform alliance party stands. Never
has anyone in the history of the House of Commons moved such a
draconian bill. No one has ever tried to do this before. It
would mute the voices of one-third of the people.
The left in the country will be around here for a long time
after the Reform Party disappears. I do not know whether the
member has any sense of history in terms of the contribution of
the CCF and the NDP in health care, social programs, the mixed
economy and the charter of rights, all of these institutions.
Maybe he was not a very good student of history.
I want to ask him this: why would he propose an idea that is so
contrary to what his former leader used to say about the equality
of the people, which was that everyone is equal and should have a
voice in the House of Commons in the Parliament of Canada? He
wants to exclude 63 MPs representing a third of the electorate.
That is the most draconian idea I have heard since the ideas that
came out of the era of Joe McCarthy in the United States.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, the member is doing it
again. He says “the Alliance Party through this member”. In
another part of his missive he asks “Is this what the Alliance
Party stands for?”
I tried to be as clear as I could in my speech. I will
reiterate it. This is not official Canadian Alliance policy. It
is simply a private member's bill. His question is, why would I
propose such an idea? I proposed such an idea because in the
words of the prime minister of Great Britain, the NDP is
misguided, unfair and irrational. If such a fringe party is
represented in the House, maybe we ought to examine the rules
around that.
The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough pointed out that
his party is not really a fringe party, that it in fact has a
proud tradition and often advocates very progressive ideas and
policies which would improve the prosperity of all the citizens
of our nation. I agree with him.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle takes offence to the number of
10% and the fact that my bill would also exclude the Bloc because
there would have to be MPs from three provinces. My rationale,
my purpose, in doing this is that a lot of Canadians are offended
that the Bloc Quebecois gets financial resources even though it
represents only one province and has as a specific purpose the
splitting up of our country.
It is just a private member's bill. I am open to suggestions
and amendments. If the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle wants
to propose that we delete the three province requirement because
it is unfair to members of the Bloc and that we lower the 10% to
5%, I am open to that proposal.
I therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House to make my
bill votable with the proviso that the member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle would propose an amendment to lower the 10%
requirement to 5% and drop the three province rule.
The Speaker: I guess it is a proposal. I do not think
the hon. member is asking for consent for all that, surely, at
this point. We are not debating his bill today. We are on
debate on a government bill at the moment. Given the complicated
nature of this matter, I think asking for unanimous consent might
not advance his cause.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
are on government business and I wish we would get back to that
piece of legislation. However, it was the member himself who
brought up private member's Bill C-273 at great length during his
conversation.
I have a simple question. As one of those parties that he has
deemed to be fringe, is the 10% requirement a defence mechanism
that the member is putting forward because he recognizes that the
official opposition has fallen down miserably in trying to put
forward that opposition to the government and must depend now
upon those same fringe parties that he refers to, that is, the
NDP, the Conservatives and the Bloc members? Quite frankly, the
credibility of the official opposition has been eroded to the
point where no one will believe them or listen to them any
longer.
Is this only a defence mechanism to try to make sure we do not
have the opportunity, with the limited resources and the limited
questions we have, to in fact put forward questions in a much
more effective manner than the member's party has been able to
do?
1035
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member
says that he is representing a party that I have deemed to be
fringe. I thought I clarified that and highlighted the idea that
really the only fringe party in the House of Commons, by
definition of the prime minister of Great Britain himself, is the
NDP, because it is, in his words, misguided, unfair and
irrational.
The other question the hon. member had was about why I am
introducing the bill, whether is it a defence mechanism or
something. In fact, I reintroduced the bill in the House of
Commons. I introduced it in the last session of parliament. I
think it is a good cause and is something the House of Commons
should examine: what is a reasonable level of representation in
parliament before an opposition party gets access to the
resources that are provided to hold the government to account?
That is the purpose of my bill.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to tell my colleagues from the other side
that the Canadian public only two months ago gave their verdict
on that party and that is why those members are sitting at the
other end of the Chamber, almost on the way out. Perhaps they
will understand, since they are sitting here talking about
democracy, that it was the Canadian public that made them lose
their seats to the other party. Let us keep that in mind.
An hon. member: You guys did well in Ontario, did you?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: We went up. You went down. Perhaps
they can understand that the Canadian public has made its choice.
The public has said where those members are going to sit.
Let us go back to Bill C-9. It is a pleasure for me to rise and
speak on Bill C-9. This is a bill the government brought in
because of a court ruling. It seems to me, and I can never
understand what the government seems to be doing, that this bill
is destined to go back to the courts. It came from the courts
and it is destined to go back to the courts because it is a
flawed bill.
The bill is saying, based on the ruling from the courts, that
the government will recognize a party with 12 or more candidates.
The government will recognize that party only on an election
ballot. The government will not recognize it as a registered
party. The difference between being on the ballot and having
registered party favours the old parties, including my party—the
Canadian public has chosen us to be the official opposition,
contrary to whatever the members opposite want to say—and it
favours the government.
It seems to me that the government is trying to protect itself.
If the trend carries on and the NDP and the other parties keep
losing ground, then the bill will apply to them too. If they
lose one or two candidates, they will lose party status in the
House as well.
We are talking about registered parties. Let me tell the House
what a registered party gets. A registered party gets electoral
voter lists. A registered party gets the ability to issue tax
receipts, which allows it to do fundraising. It is also allowed
to provide rebates on election expenses. Most importantly, if
for some reason the party is suspended, the bill would allow the
party to have its assets liquidated.
What is happening here is that we are creating two classes of
parties in the country, registered parties and eligible parties.
I do not understand why we would want to do that.
1040
Smaller parties ran in my riding in the November election: the
Marijuana Party, the Communist Party and the Natural Law Party.
There were also five from the other registered parties.
The Marijuana Party was running on the basis of getting out its
message. That is fine. I thoroughly enjoyed having their
members as my opponents and debating with them on the issues.
They had one simple message they wanted to get out to the public,
which was that marijuana be legalized for medicinal purposes.
That was their only message, because a Mr. Krieger, who is in
jail at this time, was and is using marijuana as a medicinal
purpose to counteract pain. He wanted this message to get out.
That was fine. There is nothing wrong with wanting to get out
one's message. After all, we do talk about freedom of speech. We
cherish freedom of speech.
Why can we not have these eligible parties become registered
parties? Perhaps the government can give me a good reason. If
it is good enough to recognize a party's official status in this
esteemed House, why can we not recognize anyone who is putting up
12 candidates as a registered party? Why are we creating two
systems here? I will never understand this.
We have a lot of things we can do, but here is a bill that is
destined to go back to the courts. The bill addresses nothing,
yet we have important issues to be addressed. There are issues
about reform. There is the reform of the Senate, and my friend
talked about reforming the House so that members of parliament
can speak on behalf of their constituents. As is evident and as
has been stated time after time, the power of what is happening
in the House is with the Prime Minister's office.
We are on the committees, but we know they are irrelevant
because at the end of the day everything comes from one person.
Democracy in parliament has been eroded over the years, a legacy
from past governments of the Conservative Party and the Liberal
Party. That is why the Conservative Party has been relegated to
the back rows of the House. This is the legacy that party left,
a legacy of the eroding of democracy, of all aspects of power
being concentrated in the hands of the PMO.
These issues need to be addressed. The Alliance has put forward
a lot of good proposals for debate. The other parties even agree
with us on this, in regard to a private member's bill. We are
elected by the people of Canada. We are their voice. However,
this is my second term and, based on experience, I can tell my
colleagues that our voices here are not heard, nor are the voices
of government backbenchers.
Let us address the issues that are important. Let us address
the fundamental points of freedom of speech, transparency and the
ability to allow those who want to speak on behalf of Canadians
speak. Let them be allowed. The bill before us does not do
that. For these reasons we are opposed to the bill.
1045
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I made my first address in the House yesterday. You were not in
the chair at the time, so I take this opportunity to congratulate
you on your election. I wish you well in your position and I
wish you the best in terms of dealing with the stress that the
job creates.
With regard to the legislation before us I wish to make several
points. We are in support of the thrust of the bill to provide
party status to those groups that can muster 12 members to run on
their behalf.
Our concern is much more with the inadequacy of the bill on a
number of other points. Recognizing the time I have, I wish to
address the lack of updating the permanent enumeration list from
the perspective of the experiences I have had. I have now ran on
three occasions, and on each occasion I was confronted with
similar problems that resulted in the inability of people in my
riding to vote on election day.
I will use one example. As a result of the unfortunate death of
Shaughnessy Cohen, there was a byelection in my riding in 1999.
There was construction going on at the time in the town of
Tecumseh in one of the suburban areas.
When I ran again in the November 2000 election, I happened to be
canvassing door to door in that area. I was knocking on doors of
some people that I had met in the previous two election
campaigns, but then I crossed the street and I began consistently
running into residents that had clearly not been put on the
voters list. I was with a couple of supporters and we decided to
cover the whole area to see who was not on the list. It turned
out that it was a new subdivision and well in excess of 100
voters were not on the voters list.
The point I suppose I should emphasize is that at this stage it
was only about seven or eight days before the election and all
these people had some significant difficulty voting on November
27. If a regular enumeration had been conducted prior to the
vote and during the election period, these people would have been
easily picked up and they would have had minimal or no difficulty
on election day.
I should make a point that the returning officer in our area was
not somebody who neglected her responsibilities. In fact I
thought she was quite positive in the way she did her job. She
did it as effectively as she could but was hampered both by the
shortness of the election period and by the other tools that she
did not have.
There were other areas where we had trouble. The one of
particular concern to me was with immigrants to Canada who had
only recently achieved the ability to vote under the Canada
Elections Act. We have had a major in-migration in my riding,
particularly from the Middle East. There are some difficulties
with language. As a result a number of people in two areas of my
riding where they tended to settle were not on the voters list.
If an enumeration were conducted we would have been able to
identify those people, get them on to the voters list and
facilitate their ability to vote.
1050
In many cases, when these individuals did go to the polls, they
had particular difficulty because of language. Often they spoke English
or French but they had difficulty with the language. They
needed extra support in order to work their way through the
system and had to bring the proper identification in order to
vote on election day. Again, a good number of them ended up
being disenfranchised.
There are certain areas in my constituency with people who are
of low income. We have, as is the case in a number of other
major municipalities, a housing problem. These individuals often
have difficulty affording housing and are moving on a regular
basis. The lack of enumeration of these individuals during the
election period again tends to disenfranchise them. They end up
being disenfranchised almost on a class basis because they are
forced to move often due to the cost of housing. We are caught
in a situation where we disenfranchise them.
A number of these people often have difficulty with their
identification and are not able, even if they are determined
enough to go to the polls on election day, to produce the
necessary identification.
In one area of my riding it is a financial issue. If people
show up at the poll and do not have their identification with
them, they have to actually take a bus, because the poll is so
large, go back home, get their identification and then come back.
Those few dollars that it cost them is often enough to dissuade
them from voting on election day. So we disenfranchise them.
The University of Windsor, although not located in my riding,
has a number of students who come in from outside to vote in the
riding where they may be residing while they go to school. The
lack of enumeration restricts a number of them and they often
have difficulty on election day producing identification that
would make it possible for them to vote. They end up being
disenfranchised.
We all know the figure that has been publicized, the one million
plus voters who were not on the voters list on election day on
November 27, 2000. That, by any standards, is unacceptable in a
democratic country.
We would ask the government to reconsider the legislation and to
provide additional amendments that would make it possible to have
enumeration conducted during the course of the election.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
throughout the debate today and yesterday, I could not help but
notice that the flow and the subject of the debate involved
issues way beyond the scope of the bill that is before the House
for discussion.
I am a little disappointed in the debate because there are some
important issues that lie behind the court decisions that the
House is now acceding to in considering the bill. I am not
referring to the speaker who just spoke, but most of the previous
speakers have wanted to address issues like the voters list or
other issues related to democracy and the effectiveness of the
electoral machinery that we use in Canada.
In an attempt to bring our record closer to the issues that are
in front of us, I would ask the member a couple of questions.
Hopefully he has had a look at the bill and knows the issues that
are in there. There are of course the technical issues and a few
amendments that are referred to as technical amendments.
However, there is also the issue of allowing individuals, who are
part of political parties that do not meet the 50 candidate
threshold, to show themselves as members of parties.
1055
I am trying to elicit an acknowledgement from the member that
the proposals in the legislation to allow an individual and at
least 11 other candidates to show themselves as a party on a
ballot is fair, and that the 12 person threshold is fair.
This has not come up very often, but sometimes the House and the
government are called upon by the court to reconsider an issue
based on the court's opinion. In this case, the proposed
amendments are as a direct result of court of appeal decisions
and opinion. The government has introduced a bill to do that.
I am asking the member to comment on the appropriateness of the
House responding directly to an exhortation or an opinion from a
court to revise our laws so that they are more charter compliant.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my
comments today I made it clear that I was in support of the
number 12. I felt that the legislation as far as it went on that
point was appropriate. We need to have some number. I think as
a House we have accepted that, and the Ontario Court of Appeal
has made it clear that the number 50 was unreasonable. The use
of 12 seems to be appropriate. It is in keeping with the
acknowledgement of party status in the House if that many members
are elected.
Should the number be 10, 14 or 15? I suppose arguments could be
made in that regard, but 12 seems to be accepted because of the
historical significance of elected members within the House. I
thought I had made that clear at the start of my comments but if I
did not, I apologize to my friend across the House.
I will go back to the point the member raised about the way the
debate has gone and the fact that so many people have raised
other issues. I think that is the inadequacy of the legislation.
It does not address a number of other very crucial issues, some
of which I have spoken to. Enumeration, in particular, should
have been addressed. I thought we had some sense of that from
the House leader earlier in the session, that something more
extensive would be forthcoming.
I reassert all the comments that I made in my original address,
but to address his particular question, I made it obvious that we
do support the number 12 in order to achieve party status for
electoral purposes.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
AKD INTERNATIONAL
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the pleasure to rise today to congratulate AKD International, a
business in my riding which participated in the team Canada
mission to China.
AKD International signed a contract valued at $2 million with an
educational bureau in Shenzhen to deliver high school and
community college programs using an integrated Chinese-New
Brunswick curriculum. It signed a contract valued at $3
million to establish a broadband information technology
infrastructure at the Beijing Concord College.
AKD International also signed a memorandum of understanding and
letters of intent for projects worth $22 million, of which $7
million is Canadian content. I want to congratulate AKD.
I also commend the Prime Minister for raising the important
issue of human rights while on this trade mission. The
recognition of fundamental human rights must be a prerequisite
for any form of interaction between civilized societies.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in 1992 the Minister of Transport
surrendered control of the Vancouver International Airport to a
privately controlled airport authority.
This authority learned well from the government that created it.
According to a Vancouver Board of Trade report, the authority
operates with a lack of explicit accountability, something that
has become a trademark of the government.
1100
Calls from the business community at the airport for the
authority to make itself more accountable to the users of the
facility have been dismissed as unnecessary. The authority is
quite happy to leave things as they are.
No wonder. Its biggest decision last year was how to spend a
$49.5 million surplus, yet it continues to overtax passengers
with its terminal user fee. Taxing when there is a surplus,
where have we heard that before? The authority must be Liberal.
It is way past time the federal government took a second look at
just how autocratic this authority has become. The contractors
and thousands of employees who work for it deserve more
accountability.
* * *
ESTONIA
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on February 24 Estonians mark the 83rd anniversary of
the declaration of Estonian independence.
This is not only a day of celebration for Canadians of Estonian
heritage, but also an opportunity to thank Canada and Canadians
for offering Estonians refuge in a new homeland in the aftermath
of World War II.
It is an opportunity to thank Canada for its steadfast support
of Estonian independence through the dark days of the Soviet
occupation of Estonia. It is an opportunity to thank Canada for
its support in rebuilding Estonia after the re-establishment of
Estonian independence in 1991. Finally, it is an opportunity to
thank Canada for its support of Estonia's aspirations to join
NATO in the very near future in order to secure a lasting peace
and stability in Europe.
On this special day, Canadians of Estonian heritage look forward
to the future with hope and optimism for both Canada and Estonia,
and for even closer economic, political and diplomatic ties
between these two countries.
To this end, I am pleased to announce that on February 22
Estonia officially opened its embassy in Ottawa.
* * *
AVIATION
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier this week I had the opportunity of commenting on
scientific achievements of last week, including landing a
satellite on an asteroid and installing a lab in the
International Space Station.
Those two achievements in and of themselves are quite
astounding, but they are also rooted in other achievements of
note. For instance, 92 years ago today, on February 23, 1909,
the Silver Dart, designed by Canadian engineer John McCurdy, made
the first powered heavier than air flight in Canada, in Baddeck,
Nova Scotia, to be precise. A few years before that, in December
1903, the Wright brothers had achieved the first ever controlled
powered flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.
I would like to suggest that the 100th anniversary of the first
ever powered flight, December 2003, would be an ideal time to
officially open the long delayed new wing of the National
Aviation Museum and dedicate it to the indomitable spirit of the
men and women who gave us this marvellous adventure of human
flight.
* * *
[Translation]
LONG DISTANCE CHARGES
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec
government's bill 170 will force the merger of the cities of
Hull, Aylmer, Gatineau, Buckingham and Masson-Angers on January
1, 2002.
Unfortunately, a number of the 220,000 residents of the big new
city will have to pay long distances charges if they want to
phone each other. This is the case between Aylmer and certain
areas of Gatineau, as well as between Aylmer and
Buckingham-Masson-Angers.
All these fellow citizens of the newly created municipality will
not be able to speak to each other without paying long distance
charges.
I have therefore made representations so that they will not have
to phone each other long distance, from the very first day of
the existence of the new city of Hull-Gatineau.
I invite the management of the CRTC and of Bell Canada to
co-operate in this matter and to abolish these long distance
charges.
* * *
[English]
CANADA CUSTOMS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, almost a year ago the minister for customs publicly
announced to smugglers and cross border criminals that he planned
to increase security at 32 of our 147 border crossings in Canada.
The minister went a step further and listed the 32 crossings and
what he planned to do at each site. I compliment the minister on
giving this practical guide to criminals on which border points
to avoid.
The only thing these initiatives have accomplished is to
increase traffic at our unmanned border crossings where criminals
know they can cross into Canada without even slowing down.
The government has single handedly created a punishment free
zone for all international criminals. We have loosened our
border to the point where our American neighbours no longer trust
our citizens travelling south, where jets are free to land
without inspection and where international felons know that our
justice system is reluctant to extradite.
Only Walt Disney himself could have designed this resort for
criminals that Canada is fast becoming.
* * *
1105
NUNAVUT TRADE SHOW
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on March 1 the 10th annual Nunavut trade show will take place in
Iqaluit. Small business owners, entrepreneurs, retailers and
government organizations from all over Nunavut will enjoy
opportunities to promote their goods and skills to the public.
Interesting workshops will take place.
I thank my friend, the hon. member for St. Catharines, who will
be attending the Nunavut trade show to learn about the unique
challenges of northern businesses and to share his expertise on
small and medium size enterprises.
I look forward to this dynamic trade show which highlights the
energetic and creative businesses that populate Nunavut.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
auditor general is clear, and I quote:
The employment insurance act does not specify how decisions on
eligibility are reached or how appeals are to be carried out.
This situation has gone on for several years now, and to date no
steps have been taken to make the process transparent.
Employers and unemployed workers are still at a disadvantage
when dealing with the federal bureaucracy.
It is a regular occurrence for people who have been treated
unjustly to be deprived of benefits for years. The Liberal
government's attitude is unacceptable and disdainful.
By neglecting to follow up on the constructive criticism by the
Auditor General of Canada, the government is demonstrating how
little importance it attaches to treating workers fairly.
* * *
JOB CREATION
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Statistics Canada announced this week that the number of people
on employment insurance had decreased by an average of 7.2%
since last year.
This fact shows the enormous job the federal has done in
creating jobs. The throne speech pointed out, in fact, that at
least 2 million jobs had been created since the Liberals took
office.
It must be said that this announcement occurs in a particular
context. We note that Canada has experienced the longest period
of economic growth since the 1960s.
The federal government is doing everything it can to make Canada
a leader in the economic community. And it has met its
objectives. Even the boldest.
* * *
[English]
HOCKEY
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this morning I recognize an event
that will be going on this weekend in my riding of
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. The Hull Canadiens, an over 50
hockey team from Hull, Quebec, have travelled to Biggar,
Saskatchewan, to play hockey in the communities of Landis,
Saskatoon and Biggar.
Twenty people from Hull are staying in Biggar this weekend and
are enjoying the hospitality of the Biggar Oldtimers and the
Biggar community.
Last year the Hull Canadiens, with hockey players from Hull and
Montreal, and Stuart Busse from Biggar, travelled to Austria,
Germany, Italy and Switzerland to play hockey as ambassadors of
Canada and Canadian recreational hockey.
I congratulate the Hull Canadiens and all the organizers from
Biggar for this wonderful cultural exchange and I wish them a
great weekend.
* * *
SRI LANKA
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Sri
Lanka is not only one of the worst of contemporary killing
fields, but one of the most tragic in terms of humanitarian
consequence.
The indicators are chilling. Over one million internally
displaced people with UNHCR have a limited mandate for
protection. There are over 12,000 unresolved cases of
disappeared persons, second only to Iraq. Both government and
LTTE forces have been implicated in a variety of humanitarian
abuses, with civilians as target and victim. The UN special
rapporteur on violence, who is herself Sri Lankan, has emphasized
government complicity by security personnel in sexual violence.
UNICEF has expressed concern for child victims of war and
denounced the LTTE's use of child soldiers.
Given the above, we should therefore be encouraged by two lesser
known developments. First, we are in the second month of an
agreed upon and long awaited ceasefire in Sri Lanka and, second,
a Quebec coalition for peace in Sri Lanka has been founded by one
of my own constituents, which ought to augur well for an enhanced
humanitarian sensibility within Quebec and Canada to developments
in Sri Lanka.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada endorsed the cruel and useless
bombing of Iraq by the United States and the United Kingdom
without any regard for the consequences of those illegal bombings
on the people of Iraq, wounding many and probably killing
some.
1110
Ironically, one of the consequences of our country endorsing
that bombing of innocent civilians is that it has also thrown a
financial bomb at Canadian wheat producers.
Last year our farmers exported 262,000 tonnes of wheat to Iraq,
worth about $50 million, primarily from my home province of
Saskatchewan. One of the results of the endorsement by our
government of the bombing of Iraq is that Iraq has now informed
our Canadian wheat exporters that it will no longer accept wheat
from Canada. This has just driven another financial spike into
the coffin of our prairie grain producers.
Our farmers are already suffering enough. They are in Ottawa
today lobbying for better prices and for a better deal from our
federal government and now they have lost yet another market
because of the action of the government across the way.
Let us stop the bombing in Iraq. Let us lift the economic
sanctions and save another market for Canadian grain producers.
* * *
[Translation]
OIL INDUSTRY
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Conference Board of Canada tells us that there is no problem in
the oil industry, that everything is doing the best it can. The
petroleum free market is in good shape. But who is in good
shape?
Shell Canada has announced unprecedented profits of $858 million
over the past year. Petro-Canada's profits are $893 million and
Imperial Oil's, $1.4 billion. Clearly, the oil companies are in
good shape.
These three companies control 75% of the market. They are
suspected of collusion in setting their prices and they are
governed by toothless competition legislation.
Most importantly, however, they were involved in the Conference
Board report analyses. And so how, as judge and jury, could
they do otherwise but say that everything is fine and nothing
must be changed?
When will the federal government stop mocking the public and
pass real legislation on competition that will have teeth as
pointed as those of the oil sharks?
* * *
[English]
NATALIE MACMASTER
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the member of parliament for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton
it is a great pleasure to stand in the House today and offer
congratulations to a constituent of mine, Natalie MacMaster, on
her recent Grammy nomination for best traditional folk album.
The fiddling sensation from Troy, Inverness County, has dazzled
audiences in community halls from Judique to Glencoe to sold
out performances on the world stage. Earlier this month she was
named instrumental artist of the year at the East Coast Music
Awards and her latest CD In My Hands won a Juno award for
best instrumental album in 2000.
Her energy and ability are matched only by the passion she
demonstrates for her musical roots. Natalie MacMaster is truly a
remarkable young woman and has emerged as a wonderful ambassador
for Cape Breton Island. We wish her continued success in her
future endeavours.
* * *
MEMBER FOR WINDSOR WEST
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today disheartened to have heard the comments made yesterday
by the member for Windsor West. The words from the Deputy Prime
Minister were inexcusable given his long years of experience as a
parliamentarian.
In response to a question from the right hon. member of
parliament for Calgary Centre, the Deputy Prime Minister stated
“He has a lot of nerve lecturing to me about the law. Which law
school did he ever graduate from?” These base and appalling
comments by the member for Windsor West are insulting to every
member of parliament in the House. It is our duty as legislators
to question the government on any matter of concern to Canadians.
It is our right.
I am not a lawyer. My right to question the laws of the House
comes not from a law school but from my democratic right given to
me by my constituents. My question to the Deputy Prime Minister
is this: because I am not a lawyer do I have the right to stand
and make this statement today in the House?
* * *
[Translation]
GUIDE-SCOUT WEEK
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to remind the House that this is Guide-Scout Week.
It is essential that Canadians support the activities of the
Guide-Scout program. In Canada, this program began in 1910. Since
then, it has enriched the lives of many young Canadians.
Together, the Association des scouts du Canada and the Boy
Scouts of Canada have close to 253,000 young members.
I salute the contribution of the scouting movement to our
society. Since their creation, boy scouts' and girl guides'
organizations have been helping young people thrive.
At a time when we are so concerned about the health of young
Canadians, the scouting movement helps them develop physically,
intellectually, socially and morally.
I invite Canadians to show their support for a movement that
does an excellent job with young people.
* * *
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians view break and enter crime as more than a
property offence. They view it as a personal violation worthy of
firm punishment.
A 1997 report by the city of Calgary police service indicated
that break and enter offences were the number one concern of
Calgarians.
1115
I will be introducing a private member's bill on Wednesday that
will amend the criminal code and impose a minimum two year
sentence for repeat break and enter offenders. Statistics show
that a high rate of repeat offenders are committing 80% of all
break and enter crimes. This says to me that existing penalties
are not deterring repeat offenders.
Many provinces are also calling for tougher sentences. Home
invasions, because of break and enters, have led to violent
incidents. Keeping this in mind, I hope my colleagues will
support this initiative.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
FUNDRAISING
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we now know that the CIA, our own foreign affairs
department and the Sri Lankan government warned that the
organization called FACT has been used at times as a front for an
international terrorist group. The immigration department is
also saying the same things in its arguments at the supreme court
this week.
The minister responsible for CIDA attended the fundraising
dinner. Did she or did she not receive a confidential briefing
note warning her that FACT has been associated with an
international terrorist group?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said many times in the House that
I went to a community cultural event that was celebrating new
years. Hundreds of people were at the celebration. In fact when
I spoke that evening I explicitly discussed the importance of
peace negotiations in Sri Lanka. That was very well received by
the people.
My main concern is to ensure that there is negotiated peace in
Sri Lanka and that we have peace.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the question was pretty straightforward: Did she
receive a confidential briefing note?
The answer is, yes, she did. I have a copy of that note in
front of me. The note clearly indicates that the minister was
warned ahead of time that the organization at times raised funds
for international terrorism, yet she ignored it.
When she had this briefing note in her hands prior to the FACT
dinner, why did she decide to support a group that she knew was
used at times as a front for an international terrorist group?
Why did she do it?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there were a great many organizations
there that evening which were part of the festivities. I do not
judge all the Tamil community as being part of a terrorist
group. I attended, as I said, a cultural event that evening
which was attended by hundreds of people, Canadian citizens and
contributing citizens of the country.
I spoke very openly that evening about the importance of peace
and negotiated peace in Sri Lanka, for which I received a great
deal of support. Other members on this side of the House are
working toward that kind of solution for that country.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the minister stands in her place and says that it is
okay to go to these dinners because everyone else is doing it,
but everyone else did not have access to a confidential briefing
note warning them about the association between FACT and that
criminal organization, the international terrorist group.
FACT has been associated as a front organization for an
international terrorist group. The CIA confirmed it. Our own
foreign affairs department confirmed it. The Sri Lankan
government confirmed it. Immigration officials confirmed it.
CSIS confirmed it. Her own personal briefing note confirmed it.
When everyone else in the country seemed to know about it, why
did the minister attend a fundraising dinner for an organization
associated with international terrorism?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. minister gave a very clear answer. She
attended what she considered to be a cultural event. She made a
vigorous plea for settling problems in Sri Lanka by peaceful
negotiations.
Why does the Alliance oppose that type of constructive effort
and engage in what amounts to a smear of hundreds of thousands of
people of Tamil origin in the country who are not involved in
terrorism or anything inappropriate in this country or in Sri
Lanka?
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is worse to come.
News stories in today's La Presse and the Globe and
Mail raise still more questions about the Liberal government's
commitment to and fitness to protect public safety and its
openness to terrorism and organized crime.
An alleged top mafia figure who is wanted for murder and is on
Interpol's 500 most wanted list was given a Canadian visitor's
visa by the government.
Why on earth would the government give a safe haven in Canada to
someone who is known and wanted as a criminal?
1120
Mr. Mark Assad (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the
department learned about the case the officials proceeded to
detain the person. We will do everything possible to remove
these persons from the country as soon as possible. That is what
is being done now.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, is the parliamentary secretary
seriously suggesting that we give visitor visas to people who are
on Interpol's most wanted list and that we do not have a clue
that is happening? That is ridiculous. Canadians should not be
sleeping easy in their beds with that lot in charge of the public
safety.
What we do know is that the public works minister wrote a letter
trying to get permanent landed immigrant status for the wife of
this character. The status was granted in record time and then
the wife turned around and made a sponsorship application for
her husband who is on Interpol's most wanted list.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member said something about the minister of
public works that is absolutely inaccurate and has been
categorically denied by him. I want to read in part from a
statement that he issued today.
[Translation]
—this is not from him—
[English]
The hon. member should withdraw her allegation. The minister
did not write a letter in the way she said, or any letter, in
support—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Longueuil.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning, we read in the newspapers that Immigration Canada has
granted one of Interpol's 500 most wanted criminals entry into
Canada.
How does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explain the
fact that Gaetano Amodeo, who has been charged with murder and
Mafia connections in Italy, made it through her department's
entire investigation process?
Mr. Mark Assad (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we
mentioned, departmental officials are looking into this. All
the people involved in this kind of situation are detained as
soon as possible.
The department did its job and now we will wait and see.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, setting
aside the far from reassuring comments of the parliamentary
secretary, how does this government explain the ease with which
Mr. Amodeo got through the entire Immigration Canada system,
unless there was active and direct intervention by the minister
of public works?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have before me the statements made today by the minister in
which he categorically denies having intervened directly or
indirectly in the case of Gaetano Amodeo, an Italian national
now being detained by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
I am replying to the question because I have the statements by
the minister, who is not in the House today.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is
incredible.
Let us recall that in 1994 the minister of public works
admitted that his past and his relationship with Augustino
Cuntrera were an error in judgment and kept him from a cabinet
post.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister agree that this same minister of
public works ought to be relieved of his duties until such time
as an independent inquiry has been carried out and the matter
fully clarified? It is a matter of honesty and integrity.
1125
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is spreading false statements concerning the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services because, I say
again, the minister categorically denies any direct or indirect
intervention in the case of Gaetano Amodeo.
Once again I would add that the minister has again said that
the only correspondence from his riding office was an inquiry
into progress with the case of Maria Sicurella. This was merely
a standard administrative follow up and in no way a—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us
get serious here. Are we as parliamentarians not entitled to
expect that a man admitting to having committed an error in
judgment in 1994, and heading the massive government contracting
machinery, would not only be totally above suspicion but also
committed to having no relationship whatsoever with anyone who
was connected with the Mafia in any way?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe that the premises in the question of the hon. member
must be rejected categorically.
The underlying premises are false, since the minister has
categorically denied having intervened in the case of Gaetano
Amodeo either directly or indirectly. It is his staff, not the
minister himself, who carried out what was nothing more than a
standard administrative follow up. The words of the hon. member
are therefore wrong and I feel obliged to correct them.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The Prime Minister seems to be sowing a bit of confusion with
respect to not just the Canadian position but also the American
position on national missile defence. On the one hand he
appeared to suggest that they would not proceed without the
approval of NATO, China and Russia, and then the next day he
appeared to backtrack on that position.
What is the Canadian understanding of the American position? Are
they prepared to proceed even if China, Russia and NATO partners
object, or not?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the member would have to ask President Bush
and the United States government that kind of question.
The Americans have said that they will consult with all those
who are interested, the allies, as well as those who are
concerned about global security issues, such as Russia and China,
although Russia itself seems to admit that there is a problem
with security. Russia is proposing an alternate missile system.
It understands, as the Americans do, that there is a
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
However, the Prime Minister has stated quite clearly that we
have not been asked to take a position. The Americans have not
put this in place yet and have not indicated the parameters of
it.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it does not seem to bother the Prime Minister to
pronounce on the American position. I thought maybe the Minister
of National Defence might be willing to at least do what the
Prime Minister does, but perhaps he could help us with respect to
the Canadian position.
The minister talked about parameters, technology and it not
having been put in place yet, but what is the position of the
Canadian government in principle with respect to a national
missile defence, something which in principle violates the ABM
treaty. Do we have any principles on this or do we just wait and
see how the situation develops? Is there any principle in the
Canadian position?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are consulting on the matter. How can we make a
decision when the Americans have not even made a decision? It is
the Americans who are proposing this as a security and protection
for themselves, but they have not told us exactly what it is or
when they will do it. How can we possibly make a decision based
on that?
I think the Prime Minister, the foreign affairs minister and I
have been quite clear about this. Let the Americans continue to
consult with their allies, the Russians and the Chinese, and to
concern themselves with the various treaties that exist, such as
the ABM treaty, and then we will have something further to talk
about in a decision making context.
* * *
COAST GUARD
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Canadian Coast Guard in Newfoundland plans to decommission
one of its search and rescue vessels, remove staff from 11
lighthouses and pull 50% of its helicopter service. It is also
planning to get out of the business of freeing whales trapped in
fishing gear, the results of a cutback in the work at the St.
John's and Stephenville maintenance yards.
How does this jive with the coast guard vision statement, to
lead the way in marine safety, service and protection of the
marine environment?
1130
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has taken a number of
actions to improve our search and rescue. When we came into
government, we put the fisheries and the coast guard fleet
together to create synergy so that we could provide more service
and respond more quickly.
The hon. member should stand up and congratulate the government.
Last year we made an announcement of $115 million to improve
search and rescue across Canada.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister should read the auditor general's report. Due to the
minister's refusal to let fishermen move to larger boats, more
and more smaller boats are forced to go further and further to
sea to catch their quota. More marine activity is being
generated around the oil and gas offshore activity. The main
shipping lanes in the western world are around the coast of
Newfoundland.
In light of this, how can the minister even consider cutting
back on the safety, service and protection, not only of the
marine environment but of lives as well? Why is Newfoundland
the only place to be punished? How are we going to free Willy?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is totally wrong. If he
would look at the facts on what we have done in search and
rescue, he would see that we have actually improved search and
rescue and continue to do that.
The government is very committed to the public safety of
Canadians. This is a priority for us. Our coast guard men and
women will continue to do the excellent work they have been doing
right across the country.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this week we learned that Canada is mothballing almost
half our military planes and helicopters. Ironically, at almost
the same time, a Mexican newspaper reported that Canada has
provided a $65 million loan to Mexico to purchase 29 military
helicopters for them to fight crime in its country.
Does the government believe it is more important to fight crime
in Mexico than it is to patrol our own borders for drug smugglers
and illegal immigrants?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had Prime Minister Blair complimenting
the Canadian forces as peacekeepers and their great skills. Today
we have the Canadian Alliance running them down again.
The truth is that we will not sacrifice any of the patrolling
that is necessary of our coastline to ensure our sovereignty.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am not quite sure how the government will do it. It
is at it again over there. This is the same government that has
not replaced all the helicopters needed to protect Canada's
borders, the helicopters it cancelled in the military helicopter
deal a few years ago.
The Export Development Corporation could find $65 million in its
budget to loan Mexico money to purchase its helicopters. Is it
not ironic? This pattern is becoming all too familiar. National
interests are being sacrificed so those folks across the way can
play international boy scout. When will they get their
priorities straight?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the dedicated men and women who make up our Canadian
forces are doing an excellent job. We are making sure that we
are investing in the equipment they need to be able to do their
job. We have new helicopters on order. We have new helicopters
coming this year for search and rescue, even more than we had
before. We have a maritime helicopter program that is well under
way to replace the Sea King as well. We will provide the tools
that our dedicated men and women need to do an effective job.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, rather than
assume its responsibilities and calm consumers in the face of
the high cost of gasoline, the federal government was satisfied
with a study by the conference board at a cost of over $500,000,
whose conclusions were favourable to the industry and supported
government inaction. It was released yesterday. However a
document dated last October contains word for word the same
conclusions as yesterday's report.
Why did the government wait until after the election to release
this study? Why did it not have the courage to make it public
during the elections when it had the conclusions of the report
in hand?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the report was commissioned last year, we indicated
at the outset that we expected to receive the final documentation
from the conference board around the end of the year 2000.
That is approximately when the material was available. The
conference board has proceeded to publish the official document
almost on time. As was originally expected, it had absolutely
nothing to do with any election campaign.
1135
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
conclusions of the Conference Board have been known since
October, but the government waited until February 22 to release
them.
Finally, it seems clear that the conclusions were probably known
ahead of time, since the start of committee deliberations, even.
Could we not say the Minister of Industry or the Minister of
Natural Resources is mocking the public, since we know full well
that Shell, Petro-Canada and Imperial Oil influenced this work,
and the conclusions could be only favourable to the major oil
companies and unfavourable to consumers? Who are the minister
and the government protecting: the consumers or the petroleum
industry?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. gentleman tries to impugn the integrity of the
conference board. I point out to him that the membership of the
conference board includes Caisse de dépôt et de placement du
Québec, Confédération des caisses populaires et d'économie
Desjardins du Québec, École des Hautes Études commerciales du
Québec, Institut de la statistique du Québec and le ministère des
Ressources naturelles du gouvernement du Québec.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Maurice Boucher is a vicious gang
leader. He is in jail for murdering two prison guards, yet he
has two TV sets, unlimited food and his own gym.
Could the government explain to the Canadian public why a man
who is convicted of killing two prison guards has these
privileges while they do not? Is this Liberal justice?
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government continues to
work effectively, not only with Correctional Service Canada but
with all law partners across the country to ensure that people
who must be in jail are put in jail in a manner consistent with
the values of Canadians.
That is precisely what happened here. We are ensuring that
somebody who should not be on the street is not and somebody who
should be put away is. That is what we on the government side
do.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is mistaking
Liberal values for Canadian values.
Let us take another example. We have Ian Gordon. What does he
do? He murders his girlfriend with an axe. He goes out, teaches
a course, comes back and murders two little girls with an axe.
What is happening? Liberal values say that this man has to serve
only two years of a maximum security sentence in a maximum
facility. Where is he now? He is in a medium facility.
Maybe the member across the way would like to explain to the
Canadian public and the House why this murderer is spending time
in a minimum security prison and not in maximum security.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Liberal values always say that
we will ensure that people who break the law will have the
consequences they deserve. After that we will try to
rehabilitate them in a manner consistent with the values of
Canadians.
What I reject out of hand are the values of members of the
Alliance: the Alliance values of scaring Canadians, the Alliance
values of always fearmongering and the Alliance values of playing
cheap politics with very serious cases. That is who they are.
They are not the way we are. We defend Canadian values.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
with the chief veterinary officer of the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency just back from Brazil, where he led an
investigation into food safety, we learn that the European Union
feels that Canada is not complying with the essentials of
community food safety requirements.
If the minister can invoke the principle of precaution to
justify the embargo on Brazilian beef, can he explain why he is
not applying this same principle of precaution here in Canada?
The problem is here, not somewhere else. Here in Canada.
1140
[English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is very
fortunate to have one of the best tracking systems in the world.
Our food is exported around the world. Our reputation is second
to none around the world. The country has been BSE free for
years and our tracking system will keep it that way.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I do not know whether the parliamentary secretary is going to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The House seems to be full of
exuberance today, but it is difficult to hear the hon. member
for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that
Health Canada has been on the hot seat. There was the tainted
blood scandal, cancer causing breast implants, the whistleblowing
by scientists on bovine growth hormones.
What the European Union objects to is Canada allowing the
unrestricted sale of cancer causing hormones that might pose a
threat to human health.
How can the minister justify allowing the use of these hormones
in Canada when they are banned in Europe because they are a
threat to health? Is this the best system in the world?
[English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
government is strongly committed to providing the highest
possible level of food safety to consumers of Canadian food
products. The food safety system has served Canada well. In
fact, as late as yesterday the EU, based on its own sampling,
found that there was no evidence of drug residues in Canadian
products. We have the safest food in the world.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in preparation for the upcoming United Nations world
conference against racism, the multiculturalism minister is
hosting a national consultation in Ottawa today. Canadians will
remember that during the recent federal election the immigration
minister's name calling fanned the fires of racism in Canada.
Did the multiculturalism minister insist that the immigration
minister attend the consultation given her antisocial behaviour
and misunderstanding of the fight against racism, or is the
immigration minister refusing to attend?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I have heard from the
consultations that I have done, regional as well as this national
consultation, is that the slippery slope on the first step to
hate and to any kind of racism is stereotyping.
We have heard day after day in the House stereotyping, which
means taking one group and giving them all kinds of epithets. It
is called McCarthyism. It is attributing to people in the
country who belong to a racial minority that they are terrorists,
et cetera. That is stereotyping and it leads to hate. That is
what we have to deal with in the House.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister offended millions of
Canadians who supported and voted for the Canadian Alliance.
While the multiculturalism minister spent her time and taxpayer
money running a campaign to fight racism, the immigration
minister ran around labelling Canadians.
Will the Prime Minister demand that the immigration minister
apologize for her catcalling and order her to attend the
conference so that she may begin her schooling to learn some
respect for Canada's cultural diversity?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the immigration minister is doing an outstanding job as
minister, as a member of parliament and as a representative
herself of the diversity of our great Canadian family. When the
hon. member asserts otherwise, it shows why he and his party are
totally unworthy of the support of Canadians, especially those
from groups other than the traditional majority groups.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Given the recent and very serious events in other countries
regarding food safety, I would like to ask the parliamentary
secretary a more pointed question with respect to what
specifically the Government of Canada is doing to ensure that the
food that we eat is safe.
1145
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned
previously, the government is strongly committed to the health of
Canadians.
As proof of this commitment, I am pleased to announce in the
House that our government has approved an investment of an
additional $32 million to ensure that in the future Canada's food
safety system could continue to provide Canadians with the
highest level of protection.
This investment represents funding to improve the control and
regulation of veterinary and drug residues in food producing
animals and food products of animal origin. Canadians have a
right to expect an effective and efficient food system, and that
is what they get.
* * *
PENSIONS
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The minister will recall that the House unanimously passed a
motion in 1998 condemning the discriminatory treatment of British
pensioners living in Canada and the failure of the British
government to uprate their pensions.
I understand that yesterday Prime Minister Tony Blair, in a
meeting with our Prime Minister, effectively said that his
government was not prepared to take any action on behalf of these
pensioners.
What action is our government now prepared to take on behalf of
the 140,000 pensioners? Specifically will the government launch
a challenge in the European Court of Human Rights to end this
discriminatory treatment?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member unfortunately is wrong in his
assertions. The Prime Minister raised this matter vigorously
with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. Prime Minister Blair
of Britain confirmed that in his press conference and Prime
Minister Blair said, based on my recollection of the transcript
of the press conference, that he would look into the matter
further.
This was raised vigorously by the Prime Minister. Mr. Blair in
his press conference responded to this by saying he would look
into it further. I think that should be recognized by the hon.
member.
* * *
SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Deputy Prime Minister may feel satisfied with the way he has
dealt with the legitimate concerns of British pensioners living
in Canada by saying the matter is being dealt with in the U.K.
However, perhaps he would explain why his government continues
to ignore a problem clearly within the scope of his government:
thousands of Canadian citizens facing crippling taxes on their
U.S. social security benefits. They have been calling for relief
from the government for over four and a half years without
success.
Both the finance minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have
acknowledged the problem yet have chosen to do nothing about it.
When will the government take action to address the gross
injustice faced by the Canadians asking for social security
fairness?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assure members
this is an issue we have under consideration and we are pressing
for changes.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. For 60
years the Cobequid Federal Fish Hatchery of Cumberland county
served industry and government, but in 1997 the department of
fisheries announced a great new policy of divestiture with a
great deal of fanfare.
Now, only two and a half years later, the experiment has failed;
the policy has failed; and the fish hatchery is closed for the
first time in half a century. Will the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans restore the fish hatchery to its former level and not
punish the area just because the policy failed?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, fish enhancement has been an extremely
important part of DFO and we do that across the country.
I am not familiar with the particular hatchery the hon. member
has referred to, but if he provides the details for me I will
certainly want to get back to him and make sure I provide a full
answer to his question.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should be familiar with the
Cobequid hatchery. He should be familiar with Coldbrook hatchery
and the Mersey hatchery because lots of questions have been asked
on them before.
The issue is simple. His government and his department gave
Salmon Care hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of supplies,
juvenile fish and other things, and it was a colossal failure, a
complete and utter failure. What was the total cost to Canadian
taxpayers and where is the new plan?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said in my earlier answer, I will
take this question under advisement.
Fish enhancement is an important part of DFO. I am not familiar
with all the details in this question, but I will get back to him
with a full response.
* * *
1150
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has posted a job
advertisement for an administrative position with correctional
services, but the criteria for determining who will get the job
is not ability, education or experience but rather race.
Since 90% of all Canadians oppose racist employment equity and
affirmative action programs, will the Liberal government abandon
its prejudiced and discriminatory hiring policy?
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that
when the government hires people it wants qualified, good people
to do the work of the government in an effective and efficient
manner consistent with the values of all Canadians.
What I reject out of hand is any kind of allegations members of
that party opposite are prepared to make about racism and other
things. They are the last to talk.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this is not an allegation; this is fact. I have the
ad right here. Race is the criteria that it will use for hiring.
The Liberals need to understand that it is not possible to
discriminate in favour of somebody on the basis of race without
discriminating against somebody else because of their race.
What does the minister say to people who are discriminated
against because they are not eligible to apply for a job on the
basis of their skin colour?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada and other
groups have now done studies which have shown that because of the
colour of their skin there are people with equal qualifications
in the country who do not get jobs and who get half of the jobs
they are qualified for.
It is our duty as a government to ensure that all Canadians,
regardless of the colour of their skin, are able to find work
fitting their qualifications and to remove the barriers that race
creates in this effort. It is a clear statistical fact.
* * *
[Translation]
SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
on the issue of softwood lumber, the Minister for International
Trade told the House, and I quote, we hope “that we are headed
toward free trade, and we want to make sure that—we will
have a smooth transition to free trade”.
The minister's wishy-washy approach puts Canada in a vulnerable
position in its negotiations with the United States.
Can the minister tell us what he meant yesterday when he used
the word “transition”, if not that he is considering negotiating
other quotas to please the Atlantic provinces and the United
States, at the expense of Quebec producers of softwood lumber?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister was
quite clear that there is a consensus in Canada against
proceeding with a quota type arrangement. The long range goal of
Canada is very clear in softwood lumber. It is to have free
trade in softwood lumber with the United States.
The minister will be in Washington on Monday and he will be
raising this question very vigorously with U.S. trade
representative Zoellick.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister says he hopes for a return to free trade with the
United States as regards softwood lumber.
If this is true, is the minister prepared to support a motion
from all members of the House simply asking that Americans go
back to free trade and nothing else?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member would
hardly expect me to arrogate unto myself the right to speak for
the Minister for International Trade. That is exactly what he
asked me to do. I will not take up that silly suggestion.
I will reiterate what I said. The minister has been very clear
on the fact that the goal of Canada is to have free trade in
softwood lumber with the United States. I repeat, he is raising
that issue on Monday with trade representative Zoellick.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canada has no established process to deal with rail
mergers. The transport minister claims that the government will
not be caught flat footed, as it was with the Air Canada-Canadian
Airlines merger.
As CN and CP both operate in the U.S. they would be subject to a
very substantial review process while Canada has no similar
process. There is much discussion about a possible major rail
merger. Does the transport minister have a plan and a process in
place to deal with any such merger?
1155
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend is correct in saying that parliament in
its wisdom or lack thereof in 1996, when it passed the Canada
Transportation Act, took away the merger review provisions that
were previously in the National Transportation Act, 1987.
This was somewhat controversial as the hon. member will know if
he reads Hansard from those times. That is why there was
specifically a clause included in that bill to have the act
reviewed within five years.
I have named a panel of five prominent people who are looking
into the act and I have specifically mentioned coming up with a
strategy on rail mergers.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, when the government was confronted with the Air
Canada-Canadian Airlines merger it was quite apparent there was
no review process in place for such a merger.
The Canadian travelling public has paid a very high price for
this crisis management approach to mergers. Other than the
ineffective Competition Act, when will the government have a
meaningful rail merger review process in place?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member talks about the crisis management
approach with respect to the airlines, but I might remind the
hon. member, who is from western Canada, that in December 1999
Canadian Airlines was two days away from bankruptcy. It did not
have the cash to meet payroll. That would have meant 16,000
people, many of them in western Canada, out of their jobs and
absolute chaos in the air system.
I admit it has not gone 100% the way we wanted it to go, but I
would challenge the hon. member. I think the airline
restructuring has gone incredibly well, considering the huge
number of issues that had to be dealt with in a very short period
of time.
* * *
VOLUNTEERS
Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
United Nations has declared 2001 the Year of International
Volunteers. As we know, many Canadians benefit from the
tremendous efforts of volunteers across the country.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of National Revenue. Could she tell the House how volunteers are
assisted by her department's community volunteer income tax
program?
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the CCRA has sponsored
the community volunteer tax program since 1971. This year marks
its 30 year anniversary.
CCRA trains volunteers throughout the country to help seniors,
people with disabilities and low income groups complete their
income tax returns and receive their benefits. We are very proud
to have such a program for volunteers to make such a
contribution.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday about 3,000 farmers joined
a rally in Winchester, Ontario, to get the Liberals finally to
pay attention to the ongoing farm income crisis. They have been
forced to take drastic action because the Liberal government
refuses to pay attention.
The agriculture minister's delaying tactics and refusal to take
any real action will force thousands more producers off the land.
This hurts all Canadians. How many bankruptcies, how many
suicides, how terrible does the disaster have to become before
the agriculture minister wakes up and gets emergency funds into
the hands of farmers?
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly a
lot of farmers gathered together yesterday. We on this side of
the House have been meeting with producers from across the
country. We feel for them because the grains and oilseed sector
has been heavily attacked by the subsidies from the European
Union and the United States.
We did sign a very historic agreement with the provinces this
past year. In fact we are already committed to providing up to
$5.5 billion to help these people. It is not enough. Our
minister has been looking for every resource possible, and we
will deliver.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is the problem; all talk and no
action. The agriculture minister's AIDA program has failed to
help the majority of farm families.
Over two years ago he announced his meagre attempts to help.
1200
He has given the impression to the media and our city cousins
that he has done a lot to assist farmers, but barely 50% of the
funds announced have reached farmers.
Yesterday Statistics Canada confirmed what everyone but the
Liberals know. Cash receipts are down for the third year in a
row for grain farmers and soaring input costs are pushing farmers
further into the dirt. Why does the government not keep its
promises?
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for my hon.
colleague's information, it is nice to tell one-half of the story
but under the former AIDA program 90% of the money has gone out
to these producers. They have the money.
We provided tens of millions of dollars last year, hundreds of
millions of dollars in interest free money for our producers in
the spring. We also made available several hundreds of millions
of dollars in the fall, interest free so they could sell their
crops. In fact we have done a lot in the last seven years. In
the Speech from the Throne we committed to that and we will be
doing more.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Friday, February 9, the television program
Vr showed that the Minister of National Revenue, who is
responsible for that part of the Employment Insurance Act, was
not at all aware of the fact that it discriminates against
employees working for their spouse or for a relative, by
imposing on them the burden of proving their insurability, and
by treating them like cheaters.
Since Bill C-2, which is currently under review, is silent on
this discrimination, is the minister prepared to correct the
section of the act that equates workers who are related to their
employers with cheaters?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very important to ensure that those
receiving employment insurance benefits are indeed eligible for
them. In certain cases where there are family organizations we
have to ensure that there is an arm's length relationship. We
will continue to do this in an effective way.
I would like to confirm that very few are turned down, but in
the interest of applying and ensuring the act is adhered to the
minister of revenue does these investigations.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. The member for Windsor—St. Clair asked me a
question relating to U.S. social security benefits. Just so that
I do not mislead him I will undertake to get back to him.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period
I made reference to a job advertisement and I would like to table
the document.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent
of the House to table the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to the
tabling of that document, I would point out that Canadians can
see on the Internet that the government is posting job
descriptions with a race based hiring criterion.
The Speaker: I think the hon. member for Calgary
Southeast, with his extensive experience, knows that he is
engaging in a debate and not really raising a point of order.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 2001
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-13, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
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
1205
[English]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to
speak to Bill C-9, the Liberal government's proposed changes to
the Canada Elections Act.
The purpose of Bill C-9 is to amend the Canada Elections Act
which became law on September 1, 2000. The Liberals passed the
bill only a few months ago, but we are correcting their mistakes.
We are doing the work today that we asked them to do in the 36th
parliament. We do not mind helping them again to do their
homework, but we are disappointed that Canadians did not choose
to send us to Ottawa to do our work, because we would have done
our work right the first time.
Bill C-9 will overturn the current law that requires a party to
have at least 50 candidates before it can be identified as a
political party on the election ballot. The Liberals will now
require parties to possess 12 candidates in order to be
recognized as political parties and be entitled to certain
benefits and privileges.
Only registered parties are eligible to obtain the final list of
electors, to obtain free broadcast time for political
announcements and to issue tax receipts to donors on behalf of
the party. Only registered parties are entitled to such benefits
and privileges.
Canada's chief electoral officer confirms the number of
candidates. The 12 candidate minimum conforms to the requirement
that a party have at least 12 members of parliament to receive
official status in the House of Commons, as the fifth party has.
Let me explain how the Liberals arrived at the magic number of
12. The Liberals are trying to make it as hard as possible for
any political group to challenge them at the ballot box. In
their twisted logic they have figured out that they would be too
ashamed and embarrassed to make the required number of seats any
higher than the number of seats required by the House for a party
to qualify to be recognized as a political party.
I am sure that members will remember that in the last parliament
the Liberals originally set the bar high at 50. It is a lot more
difficult to field 50 candidates in an election than 12 or so.
The Liberals like the number 50. They were crushing a number of
parties and preventing them from qualifying for certain
privileges and benefits. They have been forced to lower the bar
and to allow smaller parties to have a greater level of
participation in our democracy.
In the last parliament the Liberals kept the bar high at 50
candidates for what they knew would be the last time. In the
most recent election the Liberals could put in a fix by denying
parties with less than 50 candidates from being major political
parties in Canada.
Before the Liberals passed the previous Canada Elections Act
during the last parliament, the official opposition warned the
Liberal government that the 50 candidate rule should be dropped.
We told them upfront, but who listens on the other side? I spoke
to that bill in various debates in the last parliament.
1210
We had the approval of most of Canada's smaller political
parties for the proposal, but the Liberals did not listen at that
time. It appears perhaps that they are listening now.
Even so, parties with 12 candidates will be allowed to have
their party's name on ballots but will still not be able, as will
parties with 50 candidates, to provide donors with tax receipts,
to access the list of electors or to obtain free broadcasting
time on TV.
Those three things are crucial for a political party to be able
campaign and to have its message communicated across the country.
Those three things are very important, and parties with 12
members will not be entitled to such privileges.
With Bill C-9, the bill we are debating today, the government
would create two tiers of political parties with different sets
of privileges. On one hand, registered political parties with 50
or more candidates would possess all possible benefits. On the
other hand, political parties with less than 50 candidates would
possess few benefits other than having their name on the ballot
if they have at least 12 candidates.
Bill C-9 continues to discriminate against smaller parties. It
is not only undemocratic, it is anti-democratic as well. The
Canada Elections Act should be neutral and should treat everyone
equally and fairly. Canadian voters, not the government, should
decide whether a political party or candidate is worthy of their
vote. It should not be up to the government to decide, it should
be up to Canadians.
The Liberals are trying to pass the legislation because a court
case has necessitated changes to the Canada Elections Act. As
the House will recall, in my speech in the last parliament I
warned the House of possible legal action. I told the Liberals
that they were exposing the Canada Elections Act to a legal
tussle, and now here it is. If they had listened at the time
this probably would not have happened.
The Ontario Court of Appeal decided the case in August 2000. The
court decided that the Canada Elections Act provisions concerning
the identification of political parties on election ballots was
invalid. The court said that the provisions were invalid and
suspended its decision for six months, until February 16, 2001,
so that parliament could address the court's decision.
If this had been done right the first time we would not be doing
it again. We could be spending the valuable time of the House,
as well as of the court, on something more important.
Bill C-9 also clarifies the calculations of the electoral
expenses limit. If the revised list of electors differs from the
original list, the candidate's expenses will be adjusted
accordingly.
The reimbursement of election expenses is also covered in the
bill. Under section 435 of Bill C-2, which was a bill in the
previous parliament, only registered parties, and not the small
parties we must define today, will be reimbursed for election
expenses providing they obtain either 2% of the national vote or
5% of the votes in the ridings in which they endorse candidates.
Those are two conditions parties must satisfy before they get any
reimbursement for election expenses.
Bill C-9 does not amend the reimbursement of election expenses
provision that was in Bill C-2 in the last parliament. Therefore
this section will be discriminatory against smaller parties.
1215
Again I am standing in the House and warning the government. It
should get its act together and correct these mistakes so that
the Canada Elections Act is neutral, fair and treats everyone
equally.
The Canadian Alliance, and my colleagues on this side, proposed
election rebates. We do not believe it is fair that only
registered parties, and not the smaller political parties, are
eligible for these benefits.
Another important point in the bill is the fundraising
activities. If Bill C-9 is not amended, as we are asking, it
will be difficult for the smaller parties to engage in
fundraising activities.
Bill C-9 does not make amendments to the income tax provisions
of Bill C-2 which was debated in the House and passed in the last
parliament. The provisions are discriminatory. Receipts can be
issued on behalf of registered parties during and in between
elections. Whereas, candidates of non-registered political
parties, the ones we talked about earlier, can only issue
receipts during the writ period. How can they prepare themselves
to have their messages conveyed to Canadians when they do not
have enough resources? They are not permitted have fundraisers
between elections.
During those 36 or 37 days they can receive funds and issue tax
receipts to donors. Other than the writ period, they are not
entitled to raise any funds or issue tax receipts. When tax
receipts are not issued, it is very difficult to get money
donated from someone to a political party or a political cause.
That is very unfair.
I will move on to another point about asset liquidation. Under
clause 394 of the former bill, Bill C-2, with respect to
registered parties which failed to run 50 candidates, they become
suspended and the assets of a suspended party need not be
liquidated if the party applies for re-registration within six
months. However, if they do not apply within those six months
then they are suspended. Bill C-9 does not amend this very
important provision. The Canadian Alliance does not believe that
a party should have to liquidate its assets under any
circumstances, which is exactly what the Ontario Court of Appeal
decided.
The Liberal government may be facing another court challenge
over this if this clause is not amended. We are telling the
Liberal government what to do about this bill to avoid any
potential lawsuits. Whether or not it listens to us is another
story.
The voting process is another issue. Among other technical
matters, Bill C-9 also stipulates that if the chief electoral
officer wishes to examine alternative voting processes, such as
electronic voting, the alternative cannot be used without the
approval of the House of Commons and Senate committees. Why does
the chief electoral officer, who is supposed to monitor elections
in Canada, have to get permission for electoral alternative
electronic voting, for example, or other alternative methods to
make the process efficient and effective?
There are some other changes in the bill but most of them are
housekeeping changes. Under the current legislation, only the
approval of the House of Commons committee is required. This
sounds to me like a way to prevent change, but I will reserve my
comments and allow the committee that will hear this bill, and
many witnesses over time, to decide what this section really
means.
I look forward in seeing how the committee proceeds. I look
forward to seeing whether it will give a fair chance to witnesses
to come forward and whether or not its recommendations will be
taken into consideration. The amendments to the former Bill C-2,
which were discussed in the committee, were ignored.
1220
Let me talk about the relationship of Bill C-9 to Canadian
Alliance policy. Canadian Alliance policy states:
To improve the representative nature of our electoral system, we
will consider electoral reforms, including proportional
representation, the single transferable ballot, electronic
voting, and fixed election dates, and we will submit such options
to voters in a nationwide referendum.
The government House leader is in charge of the bill. He
was in charge of the last bill during the last session and did a
very bad job. I apologize for making this comment, but all the
good amendments which we proposed and those which were discussed
in committee were not taken into consideration. Even when the
red light was flashing signalling a warning that there might be
some court actions, the House leader ignored it. Now, the House
leader is heckling me on this.
While the bill does abandon the 50 candidate rule, it does not
go far enough to democratize our electoral process. We believe
all parties should be treated equally and fairly, not merely
those with 50 or more candidates. All political parties should
be treated fairly and equally. That is called real democracy.
The Canada Elections Act is a mess. Not only are the Liberals
not learning fast enough, I do not know if they are learning at
all. They do not have the political will to make a fair and
level playing field for all political parties to contest an
election.
The level playing field is very important. Equal opportunity
for all political parties is very important but it is not there.
The Liberals not only have it in the back of their minds but they
also have it in the front of their minds to have an elections act
that will benefit the governing party, which in this case is the
Liberal Party. That is why they did not listen to the Alliance
amendments in the last parliament and will try to ignore our
amendments once again.
The bill maintains the most objectionable provisions of the
Canada Elections Act. Our elections should be democratic, free
and fair, offering equal opportunity to all candidates and all
political parties. This would be a great way to start a new
session of parliament.
The weak, arrogant and corrupt Liberal government that lacks
vision is wasting an opportunity to modernize and democratize the
patronage ridden Canada Elections Act. It has this opportunity
again. Our election act is even worse than the election acts in
developing countries and where this government's representatives
go to monitor elections. If our own elections act is a mess, is
not democratic, how can we send our representatives to developing
countries to monitor their elections? I do not know if we are
practising what we are preaching at home.
The members of the official opposition have proposed a number of
worthwhile amendments to the bill. We will continue to do that.
It is our job, not only to criticize the government, but also to
propose amendments, suggest new ways and worthwhile change to
open Liberals' eyes. As usual we are holding a flashlight for
them but they are closing their eyes. They refuse to look when
we shine the light into their intellectual darkness.
1225
The Liberals resist change. That is why they do not want
parliamentary reform. That is why they do not want to
democratize our electoral system. The more I think about it, I
am quite convinced that the Liberals' actions are not just
undemocratic, they are anti-democratic. The government is the
dictatorship of the 21st century. It is nothing short of a
dictatorship when it will not accept amendments that would
improve the system.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I declare the motion
carried.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I heard some members on this side of the House say no. I
said no. I would suggest to the Speaker that the no was probably
not heard because some members were making noise. This should be
taken into consideration.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, these things do
happen, and although I believe your ruling was quite correct,
there were not five members in the House who stood. We would be
quite willing to accept the objections of the opposition if it
were willing to agree, by unanimous consent, to defer
the vote until Tuesday night.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division
on the motion stands deferred until Tuesday.
* * *
MARINE LIABILITY ACT
Hon. Maria Minna (for the Minister of Transport) moved
that Bill S-2, an act respecting marine liability, and to
validate certain bylaws and regulations, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill S-2, the
marine liability act. It is the reincarnation of Bill S-17 which
died on the order paper during the last session of parliament.
The bill introduces for the first time Canadian legislation
regarding shipowners' liability for the carriage of passengers
and new rules for the apportionment of liability in maritime law.
At the same time, it will consolidate existing marine liability
regimes, which are currently scattered throughout various
statutes, into a single statute.
This important Canadian legislation will modernize the Canada
Shipping Act to make sure it concur with the legislation. Some
40 million Canadians travel by sea. There are various oil
spillages. Liabilities have resulted all around the world, in
Europe, in Canada and in Greece. The act will consolidate and
make shipowners responsible. It will take away the fact that in
the fine print on tickets and so on they can exempt themselves
from looking after their liabilities to Canadians.
1230
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I was taken aback a bit by my hon.
colleague along the way in that he made quite a succinct speech
on an important piece of legislation. Obviously there is a need
to adjourn the House for the weekend or something. I am not sure
exactly what is happening here.
At the outset of my remarks this afternoon on Bill S-2, the
marine liability act. and because I only had 10 minutes to reply
to the Speech from the Throne, I will begin by congratulating
you, Madam Speaker, on your appointment to the chair; the Speaker
on his election; and your colleagues who occupy the chair from
time to time. I know it is not an easy task riding herd on this
place. I not only congratulate you but will endeavour to support
you in as non-partisan a way as possible from time to time when
you are called upon to make a tough ruling.
I also wish to thank my supporters as I did in quite a succinct
manner during my brief remarks in reply to the throne speech a
couple of weeks ago. As all of us know, regardless of what party
we represent in the House of Commons, we would not be here
without the support, hard work and monetary donations of many
individuals back in our respective ridings from coast to coast to
coast. In light of that, I assure the people who supported me
back home that I indeed greatly appreciate their support.
I have been very fortunate. I have run in four election
campaigns dating back to 1988 when I was unsuccessful. People
who supported the Reform Party of Canada's principles and
policies at the time stepped forward to work hard on the party's
behalf and ultimately on my behalf when I became the candidate,
which saw me elected with about 56% of the vote. I believe that
increased to 66% in 1997 and almost 70% in the latest election in
November 2000.
I am always quick to point out that I do not take it as a great
affirmation that I am doing such a terrific job that 70% of the
people who show up at the polls would mark their ballots for me.
I take it as 70% of the people who were looking at the
alternatives on election day decided to support in this case the
Canadian Alliance's principles and policies first and foremost.
They obviously decided to support the leadership of our present
leader. The reason I would get those types of numbers is
primarily the support and the word of mouth translated throughout
the riding of Prince George—Peace River by the people as much as
by me.
I thank each and every one. I obviously would not have time to
record the hundreds of people who are members of the Canadian
Alliance in Prince George—Peace River and all the people who
gave so willingly hours of their time to volunteer to make my
re-election campaign ultimately successful.
Hon. Don Boudria: And now to the bill.
Mr. Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, I will get to the bill. The
hon. House leader of the government probably has some urgent
business back in his riding that he must attend to and would like
to see the House adjourn early today, it being Friday afternoon.
1235
I wanted to describe as well, as a lot of my colleagues did when
they gave their first speech, the riding that I am so pleased to
represent and have represented now for seven years in the House
of Commons.
The hon. government House leader might be interested to know
that the riding of Prince George—Peace River is the only riding
in Canada that actually straddles the Rocky Mountains. It is
some 200,000 square kilometres in size. It is the eighth largest
riding as far as geographic size is concerned. While it is
difficult to get around in a riding so large, and certainly my
hon. colleague from Skeena is well aware of the problems that are
inherent in that, the reality is that it is enjoyable as well to
represent a large rural riding. There are terrific grassroots,
hard-working people from one end of the riding to the other.
I am very pleased and honoured, as I have been for the last
seven years, to represent the people of Prince George—Peace
River not only in the House of Commons, but also try to be a
worthy representative of those people when I am out in the real
world speaking on their behalf.
Bill S-2, the marine liability act, is a multifaceted bill that
will finally legislate protection for Canadians travelling by
water in a manner similar to the protection that has existed for
decades in the aviation industry. Many Canadians have been
waiting a very long time for the House to resolve that issue.
The reason I say that Canadians have been waiting a long time
for the MLA is that this is its third incarnation. It has died
on the order paper twice, the first time as Bill C-59, the
carriage of passengers by water act, and the second time in
October of last year. Both times were the as a result of a
premature, unnecessary election call by the present Prime
Minister. I am hopeful that the Minister of Transport and his
government are serious about passing the legislation this time.
When we think about it, marine travel is one of the oldest modes
of transportation in the world. One only needs to think of
Samuel de Champlain, Eric the Red and Christopher Columbus to
realize just how long we have been travelling the high seas.
However, it is now the year 2001 and we are without comprehensive
laws defining liability for those travelling and working in the
shipping industry.
If one has spent any time in Vancouver or elsewhere on the west
coast, one will appreciate the incredible volume of cruise ships
that travel the Strait of Georgia and the inland waterways toward
Alaska. The port of Vancouver alone handled over 800,000 cruise
ship passengers just last year. The cruise industry has also
grown on the east coast of Canada, with the ports of Halifax,
Saint John and Quebec City showing considerable growth in cruise
ship traffic.
On both coasts, greater numbers of people are taking to the
water on ferries, whale watching ships, fishing boats and
pleasure craft. It is hard to believe that these vessels and
their millions of passengers operate without a legislative
framework defining liability for damage to property, injury, loss
of life and the economic and legal consequences of maritime
accidents.
It is also hard to believe that the government opposite has
allowed the bill, as I said earlier, to die twice on the order
paper, leaving a void of liability in one of Canada's busiest
modes of transportation. We are fortunate that the void in
shipping liability does not extend to the protection of our
coastlines and marine environment. We have had for some time
legislation establishing civil liability for pollution from
ships.
One of the merits of Bill S-2 is that it extracts these laws
from the Canada Shipping Act and combines it with other relevant
marine liability legislation into a single act.
1240
We do, however, have concerns about whether the wording of the
provisions for civil liability accurately reflect the intent of
the legislation. The clause in the bill devoted to establishing
civil liability for pollution from a ship deals with all types of
pollution, yet the clause creating this liability itself speaks
only of oil pollution. We believe that this clause requires
closer examination to ensure that the marine environment is
adequately protected from all sources of pollution.
The remaining pieces of legislation that found their way into
the marine liability act included the Carriage of Goods by Water
Act provisions for the limitation of liability and marine
accidents and the Canada Shipping Act provisions for fatal
accidents.
In addition to consolidating existing liability laws into a
single reference, Bill S-2 also introduces two new liability
regimes that are long overdue. I am referring to the rules
regarding apportionment of liability and to the rules defining
the liability of shipowners for the passengers they carry on
their ships.
The introduction of rules for apportioning liability will
finally bring the federal court up to speed with developments in
the provincial court systems. The provincial courts have had
rules regarding apportionment of a liability for years, but
because marine claims are considered to be exclusively a federal
jurisdiction, claimants and their families have been unable to
rely on these rules when suing for compensation for injuries or
in the case of the death of a family member.
As a result of this void in federal law, claimants have had to
rely on antiquated common law principles. These laws provide
that if the defendant can prove that the claimant contributed in
any way to his or her injuries, awards would be forfeited. That
is a very unjust and unacceptable situation. With the passing of
this federal bill, courts will now have the ability to hold each
party accountable for their actions. The percentage of liability
will correspond with the percentage of fault.
I wish to illustrate this with an example. If a tour boat were
to sink as the result of the captain's negligence and all the
people on board wearing life jackets survived except the one
individual who refused to wear a life jacket, the captain would
be liable for the accident but not 100% liable for the loss of
life. By refusing to wear the life jacket some liability would
be assumed by the passenger and under the existing law he or she
would not be entitled to any compensation. Clearly this is
unacceptable and we are pleased to see that the government is
finally taking steps to correct that situation.
Another new provision of the bill is the introduction of a
system for establishing a shipowner's liability for commercial
passengers. As I mentioned previously, it is unconscionable that
a country which sees in excess of 40 million passengers carried
by water each year does not have legislation protecting those
passengers. While we are pleased to see the reintroduction of
the passenger liability provisions, we do not believe that this
protection goes far enough. Put simply, the limits are too low
and there is no guarantee that the claimant will ever see the
money.
The passenger liability section of the bill caps the maximum
amount a shipowner will ever have to pay a claimant at $350,000,
regardless of the extent or severity of his or her injuries. This
is a result of basing our domestic legislation on an
international agreement that has not been updated since 1990. I
encourage the government to take the lead internationally on this
issue and set limits that would provide real benefit to
passengers injured in Canadian waters.
When comparing the amount of compensation available to
passengers on ships, it is interesting to note that there is no
limit for liability for passengers travelling by air.
Our other concern, and the most significant one, is that there
is no requirement for shipowners to provide proof that they can
meet their financial commitment to passengers after an accident.
I believe this omission seriously undermines the entire premise
of the legislation.
I urge the government to act quickly to establish an enforceable
regulatory framework for issuing operating certificates and
requiring proof compulsory insurance or financial responsibility.
The area of commercial shipping is not the only area of water
activity where the government is not doing enough to protect
Canadians.
The government is very quick to assert its authority over all
Canadian waters, including the lakes and rivers of the provinces,
but it is very slow to develop policy relating to the use of
those waters.
1245
Here I would like to give a personal example. When I was a
young man I was fortunate enough to be able to save enough money
to purchase a boat for waterskiing. I learned to water ski at
quite a young age. It is interesting to note that while I had to
insure and license the trailer for the boat there was no
requirement, other than a sort of convenience requirement, to
register the boat itself.
My understanding is that this continues to this day, that there
are a lot of boats for which the province or the federal
government requires no registration. It is a matter of
convenience. The view is that if the boat owner registers and
gets a bow number for the boat, in the event of an accident or
misuse of the boat the number would be helpful to the authorities
in ascertaining the actual legitimate owner of the boat.
However, in many cases I have found that the new owner of a boat
does not actually transfer that number with the registry of
shipping for small watercraft. It is never transferred to the
new owner. There are probably thousands, if not tens of
thousands, of watercraft on our rivers and lakes that have never
had their ownership transferred to the new owners. There is no
real strong deterrent to force them to do so.
There is no requirement for insurance, none whatsoever, when one
operates a small pleasure craft. It astounds me that this
situation is allowed to continue.
By way of an example of that, one day we were waterskiing on the
lake that is near my hometown of Fort Saint John. As is often
the case when slaloming, if people are not used to starting out
on one ski they start on two skis and drop one. At some point in
time hopefully they can remember where the other ski is and go
back and pick it up. On that particular day, we came back after
the skier had finished. I was operating my boat. We picked up
the ski, threw it up on the bow of the boat and took off. The
wind caught the ski, flipped it and quite severely cut a friend
of mine. He had to be taken to the hospital and get some
stitches.
I was very fortunate that he was a good friend of mine. I was
quite young at the time and was not worth a lot of money anyway,
so even if he had not been a good friend and had decided to sue
me for damages, I do not think he would have got a lot. That is
the whole point of the story.
Hon. Don Boudria: But is he still your friend?
Mr. Jay Hill: He is still my friend and that is quite
remarkable. I thank the hon. government House leader for his
interventions. It certainly keeps the debate a bit more lively
and keeps me on track.
The point of the story is that today in Canada, with the
situation of small pleasure craft not being required to be
properly licensed and insured, if someone is injured or is
fatally injured and dies, there is no way other than civil
litigation in which to sue the owner of the boat for damages if
it is proven that he or she was operating the craft in a
negligent way. One never knows if that person has any net worth
to make it worthwhile suing.
It seems to me that there is something wrong with that. In
every other mode of transportation in Canada, there is a
requirement that the operator be licensed and insured, either
federally or provincially. What is it that makes watercraft so
special that they are exempt from these concepts?
1250
I encourage the government to bring in legislation that would
grant the provinces the ability to regulate recreational boaters.
It is time that we recognized that Sea-Doos should be treated
equally to Ski-Doos and that yachts are no different from cars
when it comes to responsible and safe operation.
I would be remiss if I did not express that we take exception to
the fact that the bill originated in the other place. I note
that this is the second time the bill originated in that other
place and that during this session the Senate gave first, second
and third reading to the bill in a single day. I also note that
the bill is not identical to Bill S-17, the previous incarnation
that was introduced.
In the previous version of the bill there were provisions in
part 1 dealing with the relationship of dependency that could not
be defined because the matter was under debate in this House.
This is a prime example of why this place is the only place where
it is acceptable for legislation to originate and to be debated,
amended and voted on.
Had the previous version been introduced in this House, it would
have been debated after the debate on dependency had been
concluded. This would have ensured that the bill would have been
passed correctly the first time and would not have required
amendment after the fact, as it were.
I understand the rationale behind utilizing the other place when
this House is congested with business, but at the beginning of a
session, indeed, at the beginning of a parliament, I do not feel
that this is the case.
The fact is that this House is the only one with elected
representatives who are accountable to their constituents. The
other place lacks the legitimacy, credibility and accountability
to serve as the originator of government legislation. Until such
time as the other place is true triple E—elected, equal and
effective—my colleagues and I will be opposed to its
intervention in legislative matters prior to their consideration
in this Chamber.
The majority of marine industries affected by this legislation
support it, as do the majority of the provinces. The sole
exception is Quebec, which believes the bill interferes in
provincial jurisdiction.
Earlier in my remarks I addressed the official opposition's
concerns with the bill. Although these concerns are serious, it
is our intention to support this legislation at second reading.
I am pleased to sum up by saying that we will be supporting this
legislation. I look forward to other interventions from my
colleagues about this legislation as they point out whatever they
feel are the flaws or the attributes of the legislation.
I also look forward to having the Standing Committee on
Transport and Government Operations deal with the legislation. I
suspect it will be the first legislation referred to the standing
committee once we pass it at second reading. In that light I
must relay a concern that I have in regard to the inaugural
meeting of the standing committee on transport, which occurred
just yesterday.
I need to explain something to the viewing audience, the people
out in the real world, because they probably will not be able to
make the connection as to why what I am about to relate to them
should be of importance to them.
At an inaugural meeting of a standing committee a number of
things take place. The clerk takes the chair initially until
such time as a chairman is chosen by the committee. I have no
dispute with the fine gentleman who spoke just before me and who
has been acclaimed as the chairman of the standing committee on
transport. Likewise, there are two vice-chair positions and two
individuals are elected to fill those roles.
A number of other procedural things take place at the inaugural
meeting, one of which is what I want to discuss right now for a
few moments. It is the matter of time allocated for questioning
witness who appear before the committee. A motion was put
forward yesterday at the standing committee for transport which
basically suggested that after a witness appears before the
committee and makes a presentation, there will be questions—as
at all committees—but the time allocated to the parties to
question the witnesses will be equal.
1255
In other words, the original motion was that it would start with
the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition, for 10 minutes of
questioning, then go to the government, the Liberals, for 10
minutes, and then to the other three parties, the Bloc Quebecois,
the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservatives, each
for 10 minutes.
If that had been allowed to stand, it is very easy to see that
on one front people watching on television might think it is
fair, because there are five recognized political parties in the
House of Commons and they would all receive 10 minutes to
question a witness. I respect the fact that committees are a
power unto themselves and they decide, but I think it is
important that we relate these types of stories to the Canadian
electorate so that it understands what takes place.
The reality is that on any committee on which I have served
there was some balance for the representation in the House of
Commons. In other words, if the government is a majority and has
over 50% of the seats in the House of Commons, legitimately it
has a larger number of people serving on the committee, seven or
eight members versus three for the Canadian Alliance, a couple
for the Bloc Quebecois and one each for the two smaller parties.
There is a fairness aspect. If there are seven or eight members
of the Liberal Party sitting on that committee and participating,
and they all have to share, as in this case, a 10 minute spot to
ask questions, it stands to reason that many of them would not
get to ask even one question of a witness on behalf of their
constituents. I think that is unfair.
The original motion was defeated. I voiced that objection on
the part of both the Liberal government and the Canadian
Alliance: that if that motion were allowed to go forward it
would be unfair to the parties that have the largest number of
people or the largest representation in the House of Commons. It
was defeated, whereupon an amendment was put forward and the
motion was re-introduced. It basically said that questioning of
witnesses would go to the Canadian Alliance, as Her Majesty's
loyal official opposition, for 10 minutes, then to the Liberals
on the committee for 10 minutes, then to the next party, the Bloc
Quebecois, for 10 minutes, and then to the Liberals for 10
minutes, to the New Democrats for 10 minutes and the Liberals for
10 minutes. It would alternate back and forth.
While that solved one problem in the sense of being fair to the
Liberal members who sit on the committee, because we would now
have a situation where the Liberals, the government, would get
half the questioning time of the witnesses who appeared, it was
grossly unfair to the official opposition. Anybody who does any
math can understand that there are 66 members of the official
opposition, whereas the two smaller parties have 12 members and
13 members each. If the Alliance has its full allotment of MPs
sitting on that committee, we have three people present to share
one 10 minute slot to question someone, whereas the NDP and PCs
get a full 10 minutes for one member.
I raised that as a concern, but it did not seem to resonate well
with the other four parties, as one can imagine, because of
partisanship. The Liberals got what they wanted, and of course
the other parties, in particular the two smaller parties, had
representation totally out of balance with the representation
they have in the House of Commons.
I raised that matter, but we were constrained by time because
the bells were ringing for a vote. Even when a standing
committee is sitting, a call to come to the Chamber for a vote
takes precedence; the committee meeting has to adjourn so that
members can attend to the House and their duties here. I respect
that fact. It is unfortunate that the debate was cut short on
such an important matter.
1300
I have been made aware through the official opposition whip's
office that negotiations have been taking place and I appreciate
that. Hopefully we can resolve this.
We must ensure that standing committees, as much as possible,
operate in a non-partisan manner. I made the comment that it was
grossly unfair to the official opposition. It might have been
fun for the other four parties to all agree because they can
simply raise their hands and vote. Our party has only three
members on the committee, and whether we vote for or against is
irrelevant. The government can set whatever procedures it wants.
If the Canadian Alliance is to properly represent the millions
of Canadians who voted for it and who believe in its principles
and policies, then the time its members are allotted to question
witnesses should be in equal proportion to the support they have
enjoyed.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Democracy.
Mr. Jay Hill: My colleague from Yorkton—Melville is
right. A fundamental issue of democracy is to have proper
representation, and that is the way in which a standing committee
should operate.
A lot of members of parliament from all parties question the
work that can be accomplished and the amount of effort that is
expended on standing committees. I have not had the opportunity
to be around this place nearly as long as the hon. government
House leader but it has been my observation over the past seven
years that there is a huge variance in how standing committees
operate. Part of it comes down to the way the chairperson chairs
the meetings. The chairperson can set the stage for the
operation of the committee, which may then operate in a quite
non-partisan way and accomplish a lot of good on behalf of
Canadians and parliament.
Conversely, I and many of my colleagues have had the misfortune
of sitting on standing committees that operate in a very partisan
manner. In many cases, for members from all parties who sit on
such committees and endeavour to get something done, it is
questionable whether they should even waste their time showing
up.
With the Standing Committee on Transport and Government
Operations starting off by taking this step, it was a gross
unfairness to the official opposition. I made the comment that I
shuddered to see where it would lead if the stamp that was put on
the operation of the committee at its inaugural meeting was one
of unfairness and partisanship. How can members of that
committee be expected to put in the effort, to work hard and
endeavour to accomplish something on behalf of parliament and of
the citizens of Canada?
All too often we are constrained by time. When legislation
comes forward we are given a 20 minute time slot in the House.
When that is further divided in half it gives us 10 minutes to
discuss issues of importance. We all know it is sometimes
extremely difficult to get a point across in 10 minutes.
I recognize and have often had the opportunity to remark, when I
speak in my riding of Prince George—Peace River, that in some
ways I am becoming a politician. It now takes me 20 minutes to
say what I used to say in three or four. Bearing that in mind,
it is probably good that we are a bit constrained. Otherwise we
would go on and on, dare I say, ad nauseam.
I wanted to bring that issue to the attention of colleagues, as
well as to the Standing Committee on Transport and Government
Operations, which will soon be discussing, debating and calling
witnesses on Bill S-2 and other legislation and projects that the
committee wants to undertake on behalf of parliament. I wanted
to sort of red flag that issue in the hope that we could
negotiate some other agreement between members of that committee,
but also between members of all the other standing committees.
We need to get a structure in place.
1305
I do not think my two colleagues and I are asking for anything
outlandish. We are simply asking for fairness in respect to the
numbers. I suggested that perhaps questioning at that committee,
and indeed at all committees, should bear some resemblance to
what was agreed upon for question period where there is a
weighting according to the number of seats each party has in the
House of Commons.
I believe it should be similar to what happens in standing
committees, with the exception I fully respect that they are
supposed to operate in a non-partisan manner. In fairness to
Liberal members sitting on those committees, they should have at
a minimum 50% of the questioning time because they have a larger
number of members present listening to the presentations of
witnesses.
I draw my remarks to a close. Hopefully the government will see
fit to communicate not only to members of the standing committee
on transport but of all standing committees that they should
endeavour to launch the committees and indeed operate in as
non-partisan a manner as possible, in fairness to all committee
members regardless of the party they represent.
We would like to see this thorny issue dealt with as quickly as
possible. Then the committee could get on with the important
work I am sure it will have over the life of this parliament.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Madam
Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate you on your
position of Assistant Deputy Chairman of the Committees of the
Whole, and the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound on his
election as chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and
Government Operations.
I would just like to inform the hon. member for Prince
George—Peace River that the procedure in the Standing Committee
on Transport and Government Operations is, obviously, the same
as the one adopted when the Reform Party was the official
opposition, and when the Bloc Quebecois formed the official
opposition. So it is high time certain people stopped putting on
airs.
Obviously, we have adopted the same standard and the same
procedure as in the past in the Standing Committee on Transport
and Government Operations.
We are here today to discuss the bill on marine liability. This
is an example of a bill on which all parties in the House were
virtually unanimous. Why then is it not yet passed as we speak?
We need to take some time to look at this, for it brings the
whole Canadian parliamentary system into question.
Hon. members realize that the bill originated in the Senate. It
could just as well have originated in the House of Commons.
Then it would probably have had a chance to get passed before
the last election. Once again, this is an example of how the
parliamentary system complicates things, particularly for a bill
of such benefit not only to the people of Canada but to people
everywhere.
Members understand because this bill deals among other things
with oil spills, a major environmental concern.
Contrary to what the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt kept
saying this morning, members know that any reform of the
Canadian parliamentary system would require a close look at the
Senate and at the millions of dollars it costs the parliamentary
system, as well as all the endless delays without which Bills
S-17 and S-2 for instance would have been passed much more
quickly in the best interest of the people in Quebec and in
Canada.
For the benefit of Quebecers and Canadians, I would like to
briefly review the purpose of Bill S-2. The first part deals
with personal injuries and accidents.
It would allow the dependants of any person injured or killed in
a marine accident to recover damages, which is not possible
under the current legislation which will be replaced by this
bill as soon as possible, hopefully in the days or the weeks to
come.
1310
Members will surely understand that, in the interest of all
families, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with these new provisions
that would allow, as I said, dependants of any person injured or
killed in a marine accident to recover damages, as is often done
under civil law.
The second part sets the rules for the appointment of liability.
Obviously, this is based on the principle that, if several
persons or ships were responsible for an accident, their
liability should be proportionate to the degree to which they
are respectively at fault. If it is impossible to determine who
was at fault, then the parties involved should be jointly liable
for losses and damages, as is the case in Quebec civil society.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot be against such a principle, which
respects the logic of Quebec law.
Part 3 of the bill deals with the limitation of liability for
maritime claims. The purpose of these provisions is to limit
maximum liability in terms of cash amounts or units of account.
Obviously, this can be somewhat complicated for the general
public.
Units of account are special drawing rights issued by the
International Monetary Fund under the 1976 convention concluded
in London and under the Canada Shipping Act. This liability in
terms of cash amounts or units of accounts will now cover owners
of docks, canals and ports who are responsible for an accident.
Again, this would ensure that all parties responsible for an
accident assume their share of liability.
The Bloc Quebecois totally agrees with this position with regard
to maritime claims.
Part 4 of the bill deals with liability for carriage of
passengers by water.
The objective is to apply the liability of carriers that was
included in the 1974 Athens Convention regarding the carriage by
sea of passengers and their baggage to the carriage by water
under a contract involving passengers or passengers and their
baggage from a place in Canada to any other place in Canada, and
which could even transit through a destination outside the
country.
This includes compensation for passengers and their baggage.
Therefore, from now on, all those who engage in the
transportation of passengers by water will be responsible for
damage caused to passengers and to their baggage under any
contract or tour that would begin and end in Canada, even if the
purpose of the tour is to go outside Canada, or to travel to
foreign destinations. If they come back, these carriers will be
held responsible for the passengers and their baggage.
The Bloc Quebecois supports this proposal, which is in the best
interests of Quebecers and Canadians.
Part 5 of the bill deals with the liability for the carriage of
goods. The idea is to implement the Hague-Visby rules and the
Hamburg rules to the transportation of goods by water. This
applies to a much more commercial type of transportation that
involves ships and large shipments. In this bill, carriage by
water is the same as carriage by sea. Shipowners will be
responsible for marine transportation in Canada's territorial
waters.
Part 6 deals with liability and compensation for pollution.
Pollution is among the most important issues in this bill.
1315
The goal is to make shipowners responsible for damage caused by
an oil spill but that liability is limited in the case of
shipowners governed by the international convention on the
limitation of liability, the 1969 Brussels convention which was
amended in November 1976 and in November 1992.
Ships governed by that convention are required to provide a
compliance certificate that compels them to have an insurance
contract or a guarantor who shares with them responsibility for
any damage.
This would permit those suffering damage to take action against
the shipowner, the insurer and the guarantor.
The principle of Quebec civil law permitting proceedings
against all those responsible, including the insurers and
the guarantors is
applied to the principle of shipping and marine damage. The
Bloc Quebecois fully supports the bill's recommendations.
The second section of part 6 of the bill concerns compensation
for pollution. It involves the implementation of the
international oil pollution compensation fund. The public must
understand that the transportation of oil will be covered by an
international compensation fund. Clause 73 provides as follows:
73. If a claimant commences an action against the owner of a
Convention ship or the owner's guarantor...the International
Fund may appear—
The international fund is required to pay compensation through
the fund administrator drawn on a compensation fund opened from
a Government of Canada account and known as the ship-source oil
pollution fund.
Clause 88 of Bill S-2, under the heading “Claims for Loss of
Income”, enables an individual deriving income from fishing, the
production of fish or the culture of marine plants, the owner
of a fishing vessel and the individual processing fish on shore,
who suffer a loss of current or future income or a loss of
supply as the result of a discharge of oil from a ship to be
compensated by the said fund.
All citizens, all workers in the fishing sector, all those who
benefit from the product of fishing, may now, in the event of an
environmental disaster resulting from a shipping accident
causing a discharge of oil, be compensated by a special fund,
the ship-source oil pollution fund.
This is a bank account opened by the Government of Canada. I
will explain later how shipowners will deposit money in this
account.
The Bloc Quebecois agrees fully with this provision of the bill.
It is time that not only all those who depend on products of the
fishery for their livelihood are provided with some security,
but also all those who benefit from commercial fishing, even
those who farm aquatic plants, those who may benefit from the
ocean's resources. These people will be compensated if ever
there is spill resulting from a shipping accident.
Even though we are in agreement with the bill, there are always
important questions to ask. We will no doubt have an
opportunity to discuss these in committee before the bill is
passed.
Clause 91 sets a maximum on the amount that the ship-source oil
pollution fund may pay.
This maximum is the same as the maximum in effect on March 31,
1990. This bill adds annual indexing based on the “Consumer
Price Index, excluding the food and energy components”.
It is all very fine and well to decide to have a fund, to pay
compensation and to set a ceiling, but the problem is that this is
the same amount that applied on March 31, 1990, indexed but
“excluding the food and energy components”.
1320
It is inconceivable that the energy component would be excluded
for a company or industry whose business involves energy,
petroleum products and their transportation, given the millions
and billions of dollars in profits they have made in recent
years.
I hope the government will have the courage to force them
to pay compensation that is indexed to include the energy
component in the consumer price index.
Under the heading “Payments into the Ship-source Oil Pollution
Fund”, sections 93 and following require shipowners to pay a
levy of 40 cents per metric ton in excess of 300 metric tons
for shipments of oil imported by ship into Canada as bulk cargo
or shipped by ship from any place in Canada in bulk as cargo.
Obviously this amount of 40 cents can be considered important,
but once again we are back with the same problem as with the
maximum amount. It is the same amount the industry was paying
back on March 31, 1990. The bill states that the amount will be
indexed annually according to the consumer price index, but
again excluding the food and energy components.
The Bloc Quebecois will be insisting in committee on an amendment
to this part of the bill so as to include the energy component
for shipowners who are precisely the ones drawing benefit from
this industry, which has become highly profitable in recent
years.
This would represent a simple gesture of good faith toward all
those who might incur damages and would like to see added to the
annually indexed 1990 figures the cost of the energy component,
which in this country has been one of the major causes of the
increased cost of living.
Those who are listening will surely agree with us that the
energy component has been the one most responsible for the rise
in the cost of living, in the higher costs for Quebec and
Canadian families.
Energy costs have in large part been responsible for the
increase in household costs in the past year and one-half, if not
longer.
Moreover, the Government of Canada has even acknowledged this
with the cheques it recently issued. This got a poor reception
from the people who actually have to pay energy costs, who have
to buy fuel oil, but many of whom were not included in this
Liberal government largesse. Once again, because of the
elections, they made another promise without calculating the
impact on the good citizens of Quebec and of Canada. We trust
that the energy component will be included.
I take the opportunity to pass the following message on to the
Liberal government. Correct this error as quickly as possible.
It is serious for anyone heating with oil, anyone facing
increases in heating costs and should have received a cheque,
regardless of their income.
These people have had a significant increase, sometimes as much
as 80%, in the cost they pay for heating in recent years. Once
again the industry benefited and not the public of Quebec and
Canada.
We will agree with part 6, apart from the fact that, according
to the consumer price index, the energy factor should be added
to this indexing and not excluded from it.
The seventh part of the bill validates certain regulations,
including those of the Canada Ports Corporation Act of 1983 and
1985, in addition to the regulations made under the Pilotage
Act, the Laurentian Pilotage Tariff Regulations, 1992. We fully
support the bill, which validates the tariffs for the
Laurentian Pilotage Authority.
The Bloc Quebecois would like to point out the work of the
Canadian Marine Pilots' Association and the International
Maritime Pilots' Association, including the work of the lower
St. Lawrence pilots and the pilots of central Quebec, who have
had to fight for over 30 years for their profession.
1325
Shipowners and members of the industry are constantly harassing
pilots in the St. Lawrence Seaway and in central Quebec, in an
attempt to eliminate their work, on the grounds that it is an
excessive cost for their industry.
When a ship plies the St. Lawrence River and its affluents, it
is taken care of by a pilot who is a member of the pilots'
association to which I just referred. This pilot has the
experience, skill, wisdom and knowledge required to avoid marine
disasters.
It is important that in the bill we accept and recognize the
Laurentian Pilotage Tariff Regulations.
I take this opportunity to ask the Liberal government to stop
listening to shipowners who, again, are trying to make profits
at the expense of pilots from the maritimes, the St. Lawrence
River and central Quebec. These pilots are competent and they
take charge of ships precisely to avoid natural disasters and
oil spills in the St. Lawrence River.
We must stop criticizing and instead consolidate the work of
these pilots, who are not the only ones in the world doing that
job. There are pilots' associations on the Mississippi and
elsewhere in the world, including in countries with large rivers
and affluents.
Once again, we must try to send a clear message to these pilots,
whose role it is to protect our environment and particularly to
be responsible for a ship, regardless of its destination,
whether it is Canadian or foreign owned, that they must take
responsibility for it and ensure its safe arrival at ports along
the St. Lawrence and all its tributaries.
I think that this is the best security we can obtain as
Quebecers and Canadians. We must ensure our constituents, the
people we know, Quebecers and Canadians, those around us, that
there are people who are working to try to stave off future
environmental disasters, the human errors made by captains
unfamiliar with the difficulties of the St. Lawrence and its
tributaries.
We are therefore taking this opportunity to pass this message on
to the government and also to congratulate and thank marine
pilots of whatever allegiance—because there are several marine
pilots' associations—but especially those working on the St.
Lawrence and its tributaries, the St. Lawrence and central
Quebec pilots' associations, and all those doing a good job of
trying to protect the environment of Quebec and of Canada.
The Bloc Quebecois is in agreement with part 8 of the bill
concerning transitional provisions.
It has been my pleasure to present my position on a bill which,
I repeat, should be passed as quickly as possible.
As I said at the beginning, it is sad that the Canadian
parliamentary system, such as it is, delayed the passage of this
bill before the last election. This is a bill originating in
the Senate, with the result that there are very tight deadlines.
The result was that a good bill, supported by all parties in
the House, was significantly held up.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, if no other member wishes to
speak on this bill, I wonder whether we could put the question
immediately to refer it to committee. I think that all parties
are in favour of the bill, because I discussed this earlier.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1330
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The motion is
carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing
Committee on Transport and Government Operations.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 1.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to consideration of private members'
business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance) moved that Bill C-237, an act to amend the Divorce
Act (joint custody), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I thank my
hon. colleague for Skeena for seconding my bill today.
I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to address
my proposal for what I believe to be an important amendment to
the Divorce Act. This is contained in private member's Bill
C-237.
The purpose of the bill is to establish a new basis for sharing
the custody of children following the divorce or separation of
their parents. The bill would ensure that courts grant custody
of a child to both parents unless there exists evidence that to
do so would not be in the best interests of the child.
In 1985, Bill C-41 amended the Divorce Act, making it easier for
Canadian couples to file for and receive divorces. The changes
removed most of the blame from divorce proceedings. Since then,
in effect, we have had no fault divorce. It is estimated that as
many as 90% of divorces are now granted without a formal court
hearing. Putting this 90% figure into perspective, 69,872 of the
77,636 divorces granted in 1995 did not proceed to the courts.
The downside is that the remaining 10%, or 7,764, were the
subject of protracted and at times difficult litigation.
In the same year, more than 47,000 children were the subjects of
custody orders. Using the same 10% figure, it means that
approximately 4,700 children were exposed to ongoing tension,
fighting and at times even violence between their parents. It is
the children who are the sole inspiration for the bill.
During the review of the Divorce Act in 1985, significant
lobbying took place to encourage parliament to take action to
protect the interests of children involved in divorce and custody
battles. Parliament agreed that the subject required extensive
review and established a Special Joint Committee on Child Custody
and Access that eventually released a report in December 1998
entitled, “For the Sake of the Children”. Unfortunately, this
was two years following the passing of the amendments to the
Divorce Act and many of its recommendations have yet to become
law.
The committee was comprised of senators and members of the House
of Commons from all parties. They set aside their partisan
differences to examine and analyze the impact of custody
arrangements on children of divorced or separated parents. I
would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to commend all
members of the special committee for their work on this very
difficult and sensitive subject.
The committee approached its work with great determination and
travelled from St. John's to Vancouver and conducted 39 meetings
where it heard from no fewer than 500 witnesses. These witnesses
included individual parents, children, fathers' organizations,
women's groups and professionals, including lawyers, judges,
social workers, psychologists, physicians and others. The
committee paid particular attention to what was being said by all
of the witnesses and one resounding conclusion was reached.
Dramatic changes were needed in the way parenting arrangements
are decided following divorce.
1335
The committee concluded that there was difficulty with the
current provisions of the Divorce Act, as it focuses solely on
granting custody of the children to one parent and access to the
children by the other parent.
Courts rarely impose joint custody orders in the absence of the
consent of both parents. It is thought that unless the parents
could work together amicably and constructively enough to set up
their own custody and access arrangement, joint custody would not
be in the best interests of the children. There is considerable
evidence to suggest that this assumption is deeply flawed.
Marital breakdown is not an appropriate time for parents to be
making decision regarding the division of parental
responsibility. Far too often the courts are granting custody
arrangements that will result in the estrangement of children
from not only the non-custodial parent but also the members of a
non-custodial parent's family, such as stepbrothers or sisters,
aunts, uncles and grandparents.
Bill C-237 seeks to establish that the custody of the children
will automatically be granted jointly to both parents. This
represents a fundamental change to the current system of custody.
We will no longer look upon the process as determining custody
and access but as establishing joint parenting responsibilities.
Children define themselves by their parents. It follows that it
is in the child's best interests to have continuing contact with
both parents, based on the child's existing relationship with
each parent as it has developed during the course of that child's
lifetime.
It is very important for me to clarify that joint custody does
not necessarily mean that parents start out with 50% access to
their children. It means that the parents will have equal
decision making authority with respect to the child on issues
such as schooling, religious upbringing and medical care.
It is estimated that under the current system, 86% of children
reside with their mother, 7% with their father, and that only 6%
live under some form of joint custody arrangement. We recognize
that these patterns generally reflect the division of child care
responsibilities in intact households and that many divorcing
parents agree to these arrangements because it continues with
arrangements that existed pre-divorce or is otherwise in the best
interests of the child.
By amending the Divorce Act to automatically grant joint custody
we will be establishing a new starting point for discussions
regarding custody of children. In these discussions both parents
will be working from a position of equal footing and the children
will no longer be pawns in divorce proceedings.
The proposed amendments also contain a number of additional
provisions relating to the authority of the courts in determining
the best interests of the children. The court retains the
ability to amend the custody agreement where it can be
demonstrated that the child has suffered mistreatment by one of
the parents. The court also has the ability to amend the custody
agreement for a definite or indefinite period of time or until
the happening of a specific event or it can attach conditions
that it feels are fit and just.
There is also additional protection for parents who enter into
joint custody arrangements. For example, the courts may include
in any order a requirement that the custodial parent provide
advance notice to the non-custodial parent of any intended change
of address. In addition to being of obvious benefit to the
non-custodial parent, this also provides a benefit to the
children, as it allows sufficient time for changes to be made to
parenting agreements and to analyze the impact of the move on the
child.
In advancing these amendments to the Divorce Act, Canada joins
countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom and many states
in the United States in the establishment of joint custody laws.
The bill is about putting the interests of the children ahead of
the interests of two divorcing parents. It is about preserving
the role and contribution of both parents and their extended
families in the upbringing of children.
I would hope that all members of the House would join me in
supporting the legislation for the sake of the children.
1340
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
as presented to the House, Bill C-237 proposes to amend the
Divorce Act by creating new section 15.4, which would provide
that courts grant the custody of the child of the marriage to
both spouses jointly, unless it is the opinion of the court that
to do so would not be in the best interests of the child.
Bill C-237 would amend existing subsections 16(1) and 16(4) of
the act that currently authorize courts to grant custody of or
access to any or all children of the marriage to any one or more
persons, by deleting the references to custody so that these
subsections would pertain only to access orders. In effect, the
bill creates a rebuttable legal presumption of joint custody.
The Government of Canada announced a strategy for family law
reform with respect to child custody and access in May 1999 when
the Minister of Justice tabled the government's “Strategy for
Reform”. This strategy includes fundamental principles for
reform and emphasizes the need for a comprehensive government
response to address those important issues that have an impact on
children's lives. In light of this commitment to a comprehensive
strategy, the Minister of Justice is not in a position to support
Bill C-237.
The effect of Bill C-237 is to create a legal presumption of
joint custody. There are four fundamental problems with this
legal presumption.
First, it is inconsistent with the government's strategy for
reform which rejects the idea that a one size fits all approach
may be applied to all families experiencing separation and
divorce.
Second, it is inconsistent with the recommendations of the
special joint committee's report “For the Sake of the
Children”.
Third, the bill is inconsistent with the government's commitment
to work closely with the provinces and territories to develop
co-ordinated reforms that respect the constitutional division of
powers and responsibilities.
Finally, the bill potentially creates confusion by imposing a
legal presumption of joint custody without defining what is meant
by that term.
I have noted that Bill C-237 is inconsistent with the
government's strategy for reform of the family law system dealing
with child custody and access. Let me explain. The reform
strategy was announced by the Minister of Justice in May 1999
when she tabled the government's response to the report of the
Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, “For the
Sake of the Children”.
The government's plan for identifying reforms, and in
particular, reforms respecting amendments to the Divorce Act, is
based on the primary principle that the individual needs, best
interests and well-being of the children are paramount. The
government's response notes that the Government of Canada has
developed a strategy that is rooted in four principles.
The first principle is the desire to promote child centred
reforms that focus on minimizing the negative impact of divorce
on children. This strategy identifies the need to reform the
legal rules, principles and processes that will better structure
the decision making process in a child centred way and shift the
focus of the family law system from parental rights to parental
responsibility.
The second principle is the government's commitment to work
closely with the provinces and territories to pursue
co-ordinated, multijurisdictional efforts while respecting the
division of powers and responsibilities in this area of shared
constitutional jurisdiction.
The third principle refers to the critical need to explore a
broad range of measures to support families going through
separation and divorce, because statutory amendments alone cannot
address many of the problems that are, in reality, only partly
legal in nature.
The fourth principle is of the utmost importance for the matters
we are currently discussing. It is the recognition that each
family has unique characteristics and experiences divorce and
separation much differently. It is exactly the reason why we do
not want to apply a one size fits all approach such as that
suggested by Bill C-237 to all Canadian families experiencing
divorce.
Conflict levels of separating parents vary widely, as do
individual children's needs. As well, children undergo
developmental change over time and adjustments may be needed to
allow for changing relationships and circumstances. The
Government of Canada's reform strategy recognizes that no one
model of post-separation parenting will be ideal for all
children. For this reason, the minister cannot support the one
size fits all approach that Bill C-237 attempts to introduce into
the Divorce Act with the creation of a presumption of joint
custody.
As indicated, the proposed bill is inconsistent with the
recommendations of the special joint committee's report “For the
Sake of the Children”. The special joint committee heard many
arguments in favour of various different legal presumptions such
as the one proposed by Bill C-237 when it held public hearings
across the country.
The special joint committee held 55 meetings and heard from many
witnesses across the country, including individual parents and
children, women's groups, fathers' organizations, lawyers,
judges, social workers, psychologists and physicians. The
hearings highlighted the difficult, emotional and contentious
nature of custody and access issues and confirmed that the very
different and often conflicting views continue to be held, both
about the problems and about the reforms that are required.
The special joint committee's report entitled “For the Sake of
the Children” acknowledged that one of the most frequent
requests at these hearings was that the Divorce Act be amended to
add a legal presumption.
However, the special joint committee decided not to recommend a
legal presumption. Instead, the report states on page 42:
Presumptions in favour of joint custody or the primary caregiver
have been adopted in a number of US jurisdictions, but in some
cases legislatures have subsequently withdrawn them after finding
that they were not having the intended desirable effects.
Presumptions that any one form of parenting arrangement is going
to be in the best interests of all children could obscure the
significant differences between families...Presumptions can also
have a negative effect of compelling families who might otherwise
have been able to make constructive, amicable arrangements to
apply to a court, if they want to avoid the application of a
presumptive form of parenting arrangements.
1345
The special committee carefully considered and rejected the use
of legal presumption, such as the one that Bill C-237 attempts to
introduce into the Divorce Act. This is another reason why
Bill-237 should not be supported.
The government is committed to working closely with the
provinces and territories. I am concerned that Bill-237 is
inconsistent with the government's commitment to collaboration
and partnerships in this area of law. This is one of the four
fundamental principles of the government strategy for reform, to
work closely with the provinces and territories to pursue a
co-ordinated, multi-jurisdictional effort while respecting the
division of powers and responsibilities in the area of shared
constitutional jurisdiction.
The federal and provincial governments have specific
constitutional powers with respect to family law, and the
territorial governments have specific responsibilities under
their original acts. The federal Divorce Act generally applies
where parents are divorcing and need to settle issues such as
child custody, access and support. Provincial and territorial
laws apply when unmarried parents separate or married parents
separate and do not pursue a divorce, as well as to some issues
involving divorce proceedings.
Currently the federal Divorce Act and provincial and territorial
legislation all have the same general legal principles to govern
custody and access disputes. Bill C-237 would impose a
legislative presumption that is not found in any of the
provincial or territorial statutes. If the federal law is
reformed without corresponding changes to the provincial or
territorial laws, we risk creating confusion and uncertainty
leading to more conflict between parents and increasing
litigation. This would only aggravate the difficulties
experienced by children.
The bill amending the Divorce Act could also have serious
implications on provincial and territorial court procedures and
court services. The provinces and territories have
constitutional power over the administration of justice. This
includes responsibilities for establishing the rules of civil
procedure and administering court services within their
jurisdiction, including procedures respecting Divorce Act
matters.
Arguably, specialized court services and programs would be
necessary to assist families who had a joint custody order
imposed on them by the courts without their agreement. This
could be the result of the proposed Bill C-237 presumption of
joint custody. Members of parliament from every party should be
concerned about supporting a bill that could have this kind of
potential impact on the provinces and territories while seeking
their prior co-operation and commitment.
It is critical to remind ourselves that developing and
implementing family law reforms is a complex task. The challenge
in reforming the Divorce Act is to identify terminology that is
consistent with a child centred approach and is carefully defined
so that there is a clear and accepted understanding and use by
both the courts and the public. I believe that the proposed Bill
C-237 does not meet this challenge.
The bill creates a presumption of joint custody without
clarifying what this means. Does joint legal custody mean shared
decision making? If so, can we force parents to make joint
decisions concerning their children when they are unwilling or
unable to communicate with each other? This would be
particularly dangerous in a high conflict situation. How can
this be in the best interests of the child?
It is also possible that the bill is imposing a joint physical
custody arrangement that would require each of the parents to be
responsible for the daily care of the children for an equal
amount of time. This may not be appropriate for many families.
I believe that children's living arrangements should be
determined according to what is in their best interests as
opposed to ensuring an equal division of time between the
parents.
Separation and divorce are difficult for children. The family
law system must be responsive to their needs. The bill could
aggravate an already difficult situation for families. It would
impose a “one size fits all” approach. That is inconsistent
with the government's strategy for reform and that was rejected
by the special joint committee. It could create significant
demands on provincial and territorial services without seeking
their prior co-operation and commitment. It also introduces a
legal presumption without providing clarification of what it
means.
I know that the government has spent a considerable amount of
time working closely with the provinces and territories to
develop well considered reform proposals. To this end a number
of background research papers have been prepared and several more
are underway. Work is also underway evaluating the impact of
legislative reforms recently undertaken in other countries.
Public consultations will be taking place this year on specific
reform proposals.
Developing and implementing family law reform is a complex task.
Although we need to work quickly, we also need to take the time
to insure that we get it right.
1350
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, as
always, it is a pleasure to end the week in your company, at
least the parliamentary week, because, as we all know, the work
of a member of parliament is never done.
I want to commend our hon. colleague for his initiative.
Unfortunately, I have to advise him that we will not be able to
support his bill for a number of reasons that I will try to
explain.
When these issues come up we have to remember that they are
dealt with in the civil code, the justice system in effect in
Quebec, where equality in law for both parents is enshrined in
section 587 and subsequent sections.
It is called parental authority and parents are considered the
tutors of their children. That comes with a number of duties and
obligations. This legal reality is enshrined in our civil code
and cannot be questioned unless one of the parents is found to
be unreliable by a court of justice. I am not sure how
relevant this bill is, at least for Quebec.
Second, a federal-provincial-territorial task force will be making
recommendations concerning family law and I will have the
opportunity to come back to this issue later on. It will
consider the need to reform the Divorce Act. Although
well-intended, I think the bill introduced by the hon. member for
Prince George—Peace River is a bit premature.
This also leads me to say that it is a bit illogical to have the
federal government responsible for the Divorce Act, while the
provinces are responsible for decrees of judicial separation,
and Quebec is responsible for the celebration of marriage.
It was my pleasure to take a course in family law at the
University of Ottawa a few years ago. If Michelle Giroux, my
law professor, is watching, I send her greetings and want her to
know I intend to make use of what she taught me.
There is some inconsistency in the distribution of
jurisdictions, since one is hard pressed to find the logic
behind Quebec's being able to legislate on marriage matters,
particularly the formal requirements, on matters relating to the
civil code and the right of judicial separation, while the
federal government is responsible for divorce.
Does that mean that custody, fair access, something parents and
guardians must have, is not a problem? No, let us make no
mistake, it is an important issue.
It is such an important issue that, for a number of months, a
joint parliamentary committee, comprising MPs and members of the
other House, travelled across Canada. The committee made
recommendations. It led to this report, which I want to show
those in the gallery. It is called “For the Sake of the
Children”.
To give an idea of the import of the phenomenon of divorce, I
would like to read calmly, what I consider to be the essence of
the report. I will not read too quickly, out of respect for the
interpreters. I quote “Because of the high rate of divorce,
over 47,000 children were affected, in 1994 and 1995—” You can
see that this is a fairly recent phenomenon.
The quotation continues “—by custody orders under the Divorce
Act”. This is the legislation for which our colleague is seeking
amendments to sections 15 and 4.
The report goes on:
As a result, more children—and younger children—are
experiencing rearrangements in their households. Their parents'
remarriages or other new relationships following divorce
compound the complexity of these children's lives.
1355
Dissolution of the marriage has a heavy impact on the children
of the marriage. This is self-evident. Some 75% of divorced men
and women remarry. Everyone has emotional needs, we all need to
have someone in our lives. So 75% of people whose first
marriage ended in divorce remarry, and children from first
marriages have to develop relationships with step-parents.
In 1992, 13% of divorces were of second marriages. Why should
we as parliamentarians be concerned about this? Because divorce
is not just a marginal phenomenon.
Members will remember that, at one time, a couple wanting a
divorce had to go through the Senate and it was an exceptional
procedure. This is no longer the case. Not only is divorce more
accessible as an institution, but it is no longer left entirely
up to the courts. Quebec has set up a mediation process between
spouses, and it is working very well.
What happens with the bill proposed by our colleague? It is
based on the presumption that custody has to be shared, and this
makes me wonder. I consulted with my colleagues, particularly
the women in our caucus since they carry a lot of weight within
the Bloc Quebecois. They reminded me that presumption of shared
custody is not a good thing per se unless both parents have
clearly indicated that this is what they want.
Shared custody must come from a common desire if it is to be
fully effective from a legal perspective as well as from the
perspective of the quality of life of the children, who are our
main concern.
When a divorce decree is issued by the court, the judge has
total discretion to assess the respective situations of both
parents. In some cases, the income and the situation of each
spouse make shared custody possible. However, in other cases,
shared custody is not an option under the circumstances. That is
the reason why presumption of shared custody is not desirable.
Again, when we talk about divorce, it is important to understand
the life experiences of those parents who want to leave each
other and go their separate ways.
But it seems to me that our primary concern should be the
well-being and interest of the children. In my view, this is not
the focus of the bill as worded.
As for the expertise of Quebec, where this assumption did not
have the support of witnesses from Quebec who appeared before
the joint parliamentary committee, we believe, once again, that
the interest of the children must be our primary concern. What
do we mean by “the interest of the children must be our primary
concern”. There are apparently four considerations. The first
is recognized in law. We could without any trouble find cases
in which common law judges relied on this concern, making it
part of the jurisprudence. We are saying that, in so far as
possible, the child must remain in an economic situation
comparable to the one that existed prior to the divorce.
That is why, when we speak of shared custody, we must be
concerned about the ability of each parent to continue to ensure
the material well-being of the children as it was before the
divorce. We must also place primary emphasis on the ability and
the right to remain, in so far as possible, in the same
neighbourhood, in the same natural environment. Automatic
shared custody does not seem to us to be desirable if it means
that a child will be uprooted.
When I was a law student, I recall very clearly being asked to
read a decision involving a parent who wished to move to
Australia. The parent with custody lived in Toronto. There was
a protracted legal dispute. We see how upsetting it can be for
a child who is required, in the case of shared custody, to be
uprooted for one parent or the other.
Since I have little time remaining, I will conclude by saying
that we are unable to support this bill. I give my colleague
credit for taking an interest in the matter and I hope that our
debates on the topic are productive.
1400
[English]
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I rise to address this bill. By way of background, I am
bringing to this the perspective of having practised family law
almost exclusively for some 15 years and then significantly for
another 12 or 13 years in the province of Ontario. I have also
instructed in family law at the local law school as a sessional
instructor and I have been a sessional leader at the bar
admission course in Ontario as well.
There is a point I particularly want to address. If I
understood the comments of the author of the bill, he is
interested in avoiding what at times is the inevitable conflict
between parents in the course of a marriage breakdown. I have to
say to the member that my experience tells me the presumption he
wishes to build into the legislation would inevitably have the
effect of heightening both the amount of litigation that would go
on and the level of hostilities between the parents.
In that regard, I draw to the House's attention some of the
statistics he gave on the breakdown that exists in the country in
terms of how custody arrangements are finalized. Members may
recall that he made the point that in approximately 85% of all
custodial arrangements custody resides with the mother of the
children and some 6% or 7% with the father of the children, the
remainder being joint custody arrangements.
As a bit of an aside, that 6% is a substantial increase from the
time I first started practising law. I think it reflects some
change in society and society's orientations and particularly in
the orientation of women and mothers to be willing to look at a
custody arrangement. It also reflects, I think importantly, the
amount of additional time that male members of society are taking
with the children in wishing to have that type of arrangement.
However, I want to come back to the reality of the process when
marriage breaks down. What will occur, I prophesy, is that of
the 80% of mothers who attain custody we will have a much greater
number of them going to court if this type of bill and
presumption are passed into legislation. We will have them going
to court to rebut that presumption in order to establish sole
custody in their names.
The end result is that instead of having 10% of all cases going
to substantial litigation, which is the figure he quoted, we will
have a greater number. As an aside, I can point out that does
not mean those cases go to trial and are determined by a judge.
What that means is simply that they are lengthy and protracted
litigation, which oftentimes ultimately end up in settlement in
any event.
However, what we will be having is a number greater than 10% in
our courts. If we are really sincerely interested in protecting
our children from the abuse they suffer from the litigation
process, we will want to avoid this. I can speak to that
personally from the fairly substantial number of contested
custody cases I was involved in. There is emotional abuse of
children as they suffer their way through the protracted battles
between their parents. This proposed legislation would only
heighten that.
1405
From that perspective alone we would have to oppose this
proposed legislation. There are a number of other points we
could make regarding the validity of the presumption, but
recognizing that it is this time of the week, I will leave my
comments at that.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker,
it is now my turn to debate the bill that has been tabled by the
member for Prince George—Peace River. I do thank him for
putting it forward.
However, before we get into the bill itself and talk about the
merits of this particular piece of legislation, I would first
like to thank the member for Windsor—St. Clair for giving us his
curriculum vitae and telling us of the experience he has through
being a member of the bar, particularly in family law, because
earlier today I commented about the Deputy Prime Minister, who
made a comment yesterday about dealing with the law only if one
is in fact a lawyer and which law school one should have come
from. As I said earlier, I am not a lawyer but that does not
stop me from—
Mr. Réal Ménard: Good for you.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you. Really, it is nice to be
able to say that I have worked for a living, although I certainly
would not suggest that the member for Windsor—St. Clair has not
done so. However, this was an issue this morning and it behooves
us as members of parliament to be able to stand in the House and
talk about pieces of legislation.
I know for a fact that the member for Prince George—Peace River
is not a lawyer either, but he did bring forward something that
is very important to all Canadians, certainly to those Canadians
who are affected quite dramatically by the Divorce Act and
custody of the children.
I am pleased to rise to support Bill C-237, an act to amend the
Divorce Act (joint custody), put forward by the hon. member for
Prince George—Peace River.
The purpose of the bill is to ensure that courts grant custody
of a child of the marriage to both spouses, unless there exists
evidence that to do so would not be in the best interests of the
child. As a supporter of change to the current structure of
child custody and access, I was encouraged by the report of the
Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access entitled
“For the Sake of the Children”, which was mentioned many times
in the House during today's debate.
The report came to the House in December 1998. The government's
response to this report did not come back until May 1999. Yet
nothing has been done. The inaction of the Minister of Justice
has caused great frustration among Canadians who have been
affected by marriage breakdown and the ensuing child custody
battles.
I share the frustration of many Canadians knowing that our
children will continue to suffer because the recommendations for
change will not be legislated into law. Our party supports
shared custody as long as it is in the best interests of the
children.
The PC Party played an effective role on the special joint
committee and we were a strong voice for the issue of shared
custody. We feel that the courts should work in harmony with
social services to ensure that no matter what the custody
arrangement, the best interests of the children will be
paramount. The PC Party has stated that it will continue its
efforts to have the recommendations of the committee legislated
into law.
As the Liberal government seems unwilling to take action on this
issue, I once again commend the member for coming forward with a
proposal that will move toward a more equitable treatment of
both—and I stress both—parents involved in a child custody
arrangement while ensuring, again, that the best interests are
those of the children.
The judicial discretion permitted in the bill will allow a judge
to make decisions in the best interests of the child, depending
on the merits of the individual case. The bill states:
The court may, on application by either or both spouses or any
other person, make an order respecting any or all children of the
marriage that is different from the order provided for in
subsection (1) where, in the opinion of the court, the best
interests of the child or children so require.
I cannot stress that comment enough. It is for the children,
and certainly it is a piece of legislation that brings the
parents together to make sure that in fact is the case.
Every other section of the bill states clearly that decisions
regarding the joint custody of the child will always be subject
to judicial discretion. This protects the child while enhancing
the rights of both parents.
There are other problems with the current system. After a
bitter divorce some parents deny visitation access to other
parents and use their children to get even with their former
spouses. That is in fact happening, Madam Speaker, in your
constituency and in my constituency.
1410
Police have seen recent abductions of children by non-custodial
parents who have become desperate after repeatedly being denied
visitation rights. I am not defending this course of action, but
it provides further evidence of the negative effect this has on
children. Children are forced into a fugitive lifestyle.
Shared custody should help avert the often extreme animosity
that exists between divorced parents fighting for access to their
children. This would provide a much healthier environment, with
less conflict, for children to grow up in.
I do wish that the Liberal government would take the necessary
action to fix the problem. Seeing that this is not the case, I
would suggest that each member of the House support this piece of
legislation as a small part of the proper thing to do to move the
issue forward.
I once again thank the member for the bill. I do support it on
behalf of my party, the Progressive Conservative Party.
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, this is my first opportunity to
rise in the House to speak to any legislation. I am not a
graduate of too many schools. I guess I graduated from the same
law school that Joe Clark graduated from, or so I heard today. I
am not a lawyer, but I have taken courses. One course was the
course of life.
The hon. member spoke of legal presumption. There are several
presumptions I want to mention today that are actually already
being made in the courts when it comes to divorce and custody. I
also want to mention the fact that the reason many cases are not
presented with a request for joint custody is that it is
understood and well known that there is very little chance for
that request to be granted because of these legal presumptions
that are automatically being made.
I was not aware that I would have an opportunity to speak to
this legislation so I will not quote statistics, legal points or
that sort of thing, but I will speak from my experience as a
family counsellor for the last 30 years.
First, I find the presumption is made that the female spouse in
the situation is the better parent. I agree that in many cases
this may well be true, but I also know of many cases in which it
is not true. I know of a case in which a female parent was
involved in drugs and in many kinds of activities that were
wrong, yet she automatically got custody of the child and the
father did not.
The second presumption that seems to be made in the courts I am
aware of in the city of Regina is that the mother is always the
one who is telling the truth. Insinuations can be made, the
children given over and the case closed, just an automatic thing
that happens.
Third, I think there is the presumption that the mother is the
one with the most inherent right to be the parent. Again, I
disagree with that. Usually that is the case, especially with
younger children where the mother may do a better job, but I
think recent studies tell us of the tragedy that is caused by the
lack of a father in the family. We understand that over 70% of
juvenile delinquents come from fatherless families, so it is
extremely important that our children be able to maintain contact
with their fathers.
The other presumption is that the mother is the one most likely
to be subjected to continued abuse. I am not so sure that is
always the case either. Perhaps mothers are the most likely, but
in fact abuse does happen to the other parent. Many times the
father suffers from that element of control in the aspect of
being barred from seeing the children or the aspect of being
totally controlled in regard to when, how and where he will see
the children. It has reached the point where it is totally
unfair.
1415
Just this morning in my office I received from a constituent
information about a website that I visited for about five minutes
before coming to the House. The website listed many cases of
suicide when fathers have been shut away from their children
because of this automatic situation. They feel so hopeless and
helpless, and many of them are committing suicide over this very
thing.
Many of them are being asked to pay support beyond even their
earnings. I know one parent in Regina, for instance, who was
compelled to give 75% of his income to support his young
children. That makes it a little difficult now in his new
family. The mother is not always the one who may be the most
likely to suffer abuse.
The fifth assumption that is made is that children would prefer
to be with their mother. Again, this is false. In a case I
know, the father plays with the children. The father takes the
children on outings. The father is involved with the children in
sporting events and many other things. The mother is not always
the one who spends that kind of time with the children. So, it
is wrong to automatically presume that the father is going to be
the lesser of the two parents and to automatically give the child
to the mother.
My final point is simply this. We as Canadians are big on human
rights. We have gone through a period of time when everyone is
most interested in receiving the rights they deserve. We fight
for our rights. We are proud that we give rights to everyone. We
extend rights so far that we end up with no rights ourselves
sometimes, especially in our criminal system.
However, one thing we forget, one thing I have never heard
mentioned by any lawyer or anyone else and something that I
believe very seriously in my heart, is that every child in Canada
deserves an equal right to two parents, not just one. The system
we have now, which automatically presumes that it is okay to
legislate one parent out of the equation except for financial
situations and very limited access, takes away the right for our
children have to two parents.
I would favour the legislation. It may not be the be all end
all, it may not be the perfect solution, but if we could start
from the premise that our children deserve the right to two
parents then move to an equitable situation and work that out, we
would be doing what is in the best interests of our children.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues
from all parties who participated in the debate this afternoon.
It is unfortunate that, like so many pieces of legislation, this
private member's bill will not be votable and that this hour will
be the only opportunity that members have to participate in a
debate about such an important issue as joint custody or shared
parenting as is the new term.
I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for his eloquent remarks. I
congratulate him on his first speech. I know he did not intend
to speak today, late on a Friday afternoon, but he jumped to his
feet and participated in the debate.
I also would like to thank my colleague from the Progressive
Conservatives from Brandon—Souris for his support and for his
supportive comments in this debate.
The member for Windsor—St. Clair also imparted his experience
and wisdom that he accumulated when he worked in the real world,
shall we say. I would dispute perhaps the fundamental opposition
he voiced to the legislation, Bill C-237. If I understood his
remarks correctly, he said it would probably result in more
litigation, more than the present 10% that statistics show us.
1420
I would pose the question why would it necessarily do that?
Parents would understand that the courts would uphold the joint
custody unless there was clear evidence of abuse, mistreatment or
whatever reason the court might rule. However, it would have to
be based upon fundamental, ironclad evidence that it would be not
in the best interests of the child to have joint custody. Once
it became the norm, I believe parents would accept that. They
would quit using children as pawns in their otherwise very
disruptive divorce settlements or separation settlements.
I would dispute whether it would necessarily result in an
increase in that 10% number.
I congratulate the member for Erie—Lincoln on participating in
this debate. I was appalled and saddened at his remarks but not
surprised. I suspect that the general thrust of his speech, if
not in its entirety, was put together by lawyers in the justice
department for the Minister of Justice and perhaps passed to him.
They may not all be his thoughts on this important subject.
If I understood him, his main argument was that the government
in its infinite wisdom wants to develop a comprehensive strategy
to deal with this very important subject of shared parenting or
custody and access. I would argue that the government has had
time. How much longer can children wait? Every day that goes by
there are children caught between their love, respect and
devotion for both parents. Children are being hurt the most by
the government's inaction.
We can go into all the legalities. As the member for
Brandon—Souris said we are not lawyers, so I will not get into
the legality of it. I believe very strongly that all of us as
members of parliament, regardless of party, are being beseeched
by citizens, parents and grandparents across the country on this
issue. There has to be a time for action and it has to be now.
I could go on but we are out of time. I could talk about my own
experience having just gone through a divorce some two years ago
and the fact that I have three children. Now is not the time to
go into that. Many of us have been touched by divorce. We have
seen children who have been hurt when parents start warring in
the courts or outside the courts. We must do something for them.
I believe this was the first step we could have taken to go down
that road to institute a system of more fairness and to help the
children.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hour provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired.
Since the motion was not votable, the item is dropped from the
order paper.
[English]
It being 2.23 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.23 p.m.)