37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 035
CONTENTS
Friday, March 23, 2001
1005
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| JUDGES ACT
|
| Bill C-12. Second reading
|
1010
| Division on motion deferred
|
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
|
| Bill C-4. Report Stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-7—Notice of time allocation
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1015
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
|
| Bill C-4. Report stage
|
| Motions in Amendment
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Motions nos. 1 and 6
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Motion no. 10
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
1020
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1025
1030
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1035
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1040
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
1045
1050
| Mr. Ted White |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| WORLD TUBERCULOSIS DAY
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
1100
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| KIDS HELP PHONE
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADIAN SPORTS AWARDS
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| WORLD POETRY DAY
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
1105
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| JEAN-GUY LABRECQUE
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| NOROUZ
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| SPACE STATION MIR
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1110
| PREMIER OF QUEBEC
|
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
| OXFORD
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| WILLIAM B. SUTHERLAND
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| DEWDNEY—ALOUETTE
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1115
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1120
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1125
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1130
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1135
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1140
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| JUSTICE
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
1145
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
1150
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| CANADIAN JOB CREATION FUND
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1155
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Andy Burton |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Andy Burton |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Hon. Ronald Duhamel |
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1200
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1205
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural
|
| Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| PETITIONS
|
| Poison Control
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Iraq
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1210
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Auberge Grand-Mère
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1215
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1220
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1225
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
|
| Bill C-4. Report stage
|
| Mr. Ted White |
1230
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1235
1240
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1245
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1250
1255
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1300
1305
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1310
1315
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
1320
1325
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
1330
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| BÉLANGER-CAMPEAU COMMISSION
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motion
|
1335
1340
1345
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
1350
1355
| Mr. Scott Reid |
1400
1405
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
1410
1415
1420
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1425
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 035
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 23, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would ask the Chair to seek unanimous consent, given
the grave and extremely urgent implications of information that
is now in the public sphere, that the Prime Minister be asked to
appear before the House of Commons to make a public statement
answering to the allegations that are before the public.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough have consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
JUDGES ACT
The House resumed from March 22 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another
act in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
1010
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the
division stands deferred until Monday, March 26, at the ordinary
hour of daily adjournment.
* * *
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-4, an act to
establish a foundation to fund sustainable development
technology, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: This is the ruling concerning the
groups at report stage of Bill C-4, an act to establish a
foundation to fund sustainable development technology.
[Translation]
There are 12 motions on the notice paper relating to the report
stage of Bill C-4.
As I mentioned in my statement of March 21, the Chair does not
intend to provide justification for the selection of amendments,
or reasons for the non-selection of amendments, except where this
is deemed necessary or appropriate.
Since this is the first report stage ruling since my statement,
I feel that it would be appropriate to briefly outline my
approach to this bill.
[English]
The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern
Development and Natural Resources considered this bill at clause
by clause on March 15. This was prior to the statement that I
made in the House outlining the guidelines that I will be
following for the selection of motions at report stage. Since
members could not have known about the new application of these
guidelines at that time, I intend to be more generous in
exercising my discretionary powers of selection.
Therefore motions which could have been proposed in committee
stage but were not will be entertained on this occasion. However,
in keeping with the note to Standing Order 76.1(5), motions which
were defeated in committee will not be entertained once again at
report stage. Consequently five of the motions submitted by the
hon. member for South Shore at report stage, namely Motions Nos.
2, 5, 7, 11 and 12, will not be selected for debate because they
were defeated in committee.
[Translation]
Seven motions will be selected for debate in three separate
groups. The voting patterns for the motions within each group
are available at the Table. The Chair will remind the House of
each pattern at the time of voting.
* * *
[English]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
BILL C-7—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An
agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing
Orders 78(1) and 78(2) with respect to the second reading of Bill
C-7, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and
to amend and repeal other acts.
Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give
notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next
sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for
the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Could you clarify what the government House leader just
said? Did he just put closure on the House?
1015
The Deputy Speaker: I believe the member would like to
get into a debate. To put it very briefly, it was a time
allocation motion, yes.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-4, an act to establish
a foundation to fund sustainable development technology, as
reported (with amendment) from the committee.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-4, in
Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 29 on page 1
and lines 1 and 2 on page 2 with the following:
That Bill C-4 be
amended by adding after line 15 on page 11 the following new
clause:
“18.1 The Foundation, the Governor in Council and a
provincial minister responsible for the environment may, by
unanimous consent, establish criteria of eligibility to be
met by the eligible recipients who carry on or will carry on
eligible projects primarily in the province of that
minister.”
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) moved:
That
Bill C-4, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing lines
41 and 42 on page 16 with the following:
[English]
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my colleague, the
member for South Shore, who has been very instrumental in the
clause by clause consideration of this piece of legislation, Bill
C-4, in committee. The member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, and I on his behalf, put forward
an amendment that did not go to the committee. I thank the
Speaker for his ruling that the amendment should, and well could
be, placed on the floor.
As I indicated earlier this morning to the Minister of Natural
Resources, there are some good amendments that come forward from
the opposition side, and this is one of those amendments.
As the member for South Shore has indicated, there should be a
detailed statement of eligible projects for which funding was
provided. This speaks to the issue of the funding that has been
put forward in the legislation. It has a tendency not to allow
projects to have a closed portion of the funding. Also, there is
a section which speaks to access to information where there
should be transparency.
We have talked quite frequently in the House about the openness
and transparency of the government. Certainly the foundation
being proposed under the legislation should also fall under the
rules where there should be openness. Public money will be
expended and certainly those funds should be identified by the
projects themselves and come back so that members of parliament
recognize exactly how the funds are expended.
I put Motion No. 10 forward on behalf of my colleague. I
suspect the government will look very seriously at passing the
amendment.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on the first group of motions, Motions Nos. 1 and 10, we
would support Motion No. 10 and reject Motion No. 1. Motion No.
1 in the name of the Bloc member just adds further confusion and
vagueness to the whole bill.
The intent of the bill and what it hopes to achieve are
certainly honourable, and our party wanted very much to support
the bill. However when we look at the bill and analyse it, it is
so vague that it appears deliberately designed to allow huge
discretion in not only the criteria of the projects, but also the
people who receive funding to undertake the projects.
1020
The criteria that apply to those people is wide open. There
does not seem to be any kind of criteria. As the auditor general
noted in his last report to the House, there are serious
deficiencies in the quality of government appointments to some of
the boards and a lack of expertise. The bill is very vague and
loose on who might qualify as a member of the foundation, a
member of the board or the chair of the board.
The bill needs tightening up and cleaning up. One example of
that need is the fact that the minister and the government have
amended the bill four or five times in committee and now in the
report stage. That is quite extraordinary. The minister
presents a bill to the House and then, before the bill even
finishes the process, sees flaws and amends the bill in a number
of areas. It is very loosely worded.
I will return to Motion No. 1. I have huge problems with the
idea of the Bloc including the provincial environment minister in
establishing criteria for the project or group to be funded. We
would have a piece of legislation with different criteria in all
10 provinces. I cannot see how that could possibly work. If
there is one thing we need here it is more clarity and
consistency, not less.
However I think Motion No. 10 is perfectly valid. In an effort
to tighten up the bill, at least to some degree, we in the
Progressive Conservative Party ask that the eligibility criteria
be included. Then we could all assess it here in the House, have
a look at it and make amendments and recommendations on how the
criteria could be better applied. I think that is a perfectly
valid suggestion. We certainly will support Motion No. 10.
I will speak further on the other groups as we get to them.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first off, let
us say that Bill C-4 provides for the establishment of a
foundation, so we should oppose it right from the start.
Why should we oppose it? Because the Bloc Quebecois has certain
concerns about the creation of foundations. We have already had
experience with the millennium scholarships foundation, which
involves an area under the jurisdiction of a province, Quebec.
Obviously the points of concern and the Bloc's position relate
primarily to the division of jurisdictions. Quebec already has
foundations for environmental action.
The matter of concentration of power in a foundation is also of
some concern. There will be an opportunity to develop this a
little more later.
The definition of the expressions is also another matter. The
bill refers to “eligible project” and “criteria of eligibility”.
There was a national issue table on the environment and there are fairly
substantial inequalities in this regard.
As concerns Motion No. 1, subclause 18(1) talks of meeting the
eligibility criteria it sets out. As I was saying
earlier, subclause 18(1) is not necessarily very clear about work
or criteria.
Even though the government's intentions in establishing a
foundation are noble, Quebec already has foundations for the
environment, so it is understandable that our intention is
to avoid a duplication of efforts.
1025
When it comes to the environment intentions are always noble,
but we wonder about the process. Right now we can see that
there will again be duplication. We have no details on eligible
projects and on criteria of eligibility. At this point we
are still in the dark, which means that there will certainly be
an abuse of power, given the provisions of the bill.
For all intents and purposes, the Prime Minister will appoint
seven members to the foundation who in turn will appoint eight
other members. The Prime Minister will again be able to appoint
people. As the auditor general often pointed out in his reports
and recommendations, those appointed to various foundations and
organizations should first have the required qualifications,
instead of being close friends.
Let us look at Motion No. 6, which deals with subclause 18(1). It
proposes the following wording for that clause:
18(1) The Foundation, the Governor in Council and a provincial
minister responsible for the environment may, by unanimous
consent, establish criteria of eligibility to be met by the
eligible recipients who carry on or will carry on eligible
projects primarily in the province of that minister.
This was one of the first concerns that I expressed to the
House: duplication and up to a point interference.
Things should be clear. Even though the foundation's ultimate
goal is a noble one, provincial foundations including those in
Quebec also have major environmental concerns. In order to
avoid duplication it is obvious that ideally the provinces
should have the right to opt out with full compensation so that
they can decide on fundamental measures regarding the
environment.
I submitted a number of motions to the committee in that regard.
Some members of the committee told me that such changes would be
too substantial. These changes would not have substantially
affected the noble objectives relating to the environment.
However, from an operational point of view, these changes were
obviously major ones. The changes proposed in the amendments did
respect jurisdictions and sought to avoid duplication.
When a government reaches the point where it collects way too
much tax, given its mandates and responsibilities it always
ends up intruding on something. The foundations are a prime
example of that.
Under the bill the government is prepared to invest over $110
million. Again, this is not enough. At one point during the
consultation process it was said that an investment of close to
$1.3 billion was required for new technologies and sustainable
development so as to fight greenhouse gases.
I believe, therefore, that the amendment contained in Motion
No. 6 concerning subclause 18(1) is relevant, helps respect
jurisdictions, and will enable us to prevent duplication so that
the priorities of the provinces and of Quebec will be better
served. The foundation's objectives, I repeat and will continue
to repeat, are noble ones. There is money available, but people
are already working hard in these areas. They have the expertise
and the know-how to identify their priorities.
Obviously we agree with the motions in Group No. 1, that is
Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 10. Motion No. 10 moved by the member for
South Shore also meets with our approval because during a
meeting of the committee we moved a similar motion telling the
government that the foundation would have to put in place
screening mechanisms.
1030
If the federal government puts large amounts into
intentions—obviously there is even applied research—and only into
intentions, there is a strong risk that money will be spent in
sectors or on studies that will go nowhere.
What is needed is some screening within the foundation with
respect to eligible projects, criteria and results. It goes
without saying that this is important and we also support this
motion.
The Bloc Quebecois will oppose the establishment of this
foundation because it does not respect jurisdictions. It does
not prevent duplication and it perhaps does not
respect other priorities.
It is very vague in terms of eligible projects and criteria,
with the result that directions are not clear. In addition,
people will be appointed to this foundation who
also do not know what direction they will head in, but who will
know very soon when the Prime Minister has had a word with
them.
We will therefore be supporting Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 10.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today on
behalf of the people of Surrey Central to debate, at report
stage, Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to fund
sustainable development technology.
Just to remind members, as well as the people who are watching
the debate today, in the 2000 federal budget the Liberals
announced that they would be creating a sustainable development
technology fund and that they had earmarked $100 million in
initial funding to the sustainable development technology fund.
It was a very good initiative that should have been taken a long
time ago, but they took eight or nine years to implement their
own red book one promise.
For the benefit of those who are watching, 10 amendments have
been put forward at report stage. They are grouped into three
different groups. In the first group we are debating Motions
Nos. 1, 6 and 10.
Members of the Canadian Alliance support the intent of Bill C-4
but we have a few reservations and some amendments to suggest
dealing with the non-involvement of the auditor general in the
whole process. We are also concerned with the patronage
appointments to the board of directors. We feel that the
government is using this bill for patronage appointments of
failed candidates.
With respect to Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 10, Motions Nos. 1 and 6
are very similar in nature. They would bring provincial
ministers of environment into all discussions regarding the
criteria of eligibility for receiving funds. Being so, it would
introduce different criteria of acceptance into every province,
The 10 different provinces may have 10 different criteria, that
is the potential.
The bill desperately needs uniformity. It is so poorly worded
and poorly drafted that even the minister has had to put forward
amendments at this late stage in the debate. We believe that the
uniformity, which is desperately needed in the bill, may be lost
when different criteria for funding are applied to different
provinces and territories. By allowing these amendments to pass,
it would make already cumbersome legislation much more clumsy and
difficult to deliver. Therefore, the Canadian Alliance will be
voting against Motions Nos. 1 and 6.
1035
We will be supporting Motion No. 10, which was moved by the
Progressive Conservative Party member, because it attempts to
curtail some of the vagueness in the bill by including the
eligibility criteria for receiving funds.
On behalf of the people of Surrey Central, I will be pleased to
support Motion No. 10 and oppose Motions No. 1 and 6. I will
keep the rest of my comments in reserve until the bill comes back
to the House for third reading.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-4 this morning. This bill seeks to
establish a foundation to fund technological support for
sustainable environment. We are currently at report stage and we
are debating Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 10.
Before telling the House how the government should have dealt
with these amendments, let me say that sustainable development
is an issue about which I care a great deal. It is important to
provide sound development and a sound environment, for ourselves
and for future generations.
However, we must recognize that the federal government is
putting this priority behind its visibility. The bill creates
new duplication and intrudes on provincial jurisdictions. This
will have a negative impact on the protection of the environment
and on sustainable development.
Once again, the federal government is opting for confrontation
instead of co-operation with the provinces. Unfortunately, this
cavalier attitude has become a trademark of the Liberals. The
creation of the foundation is yet another example, after the
millennium scholarships and the legislation on endangered
species. Do not get me wrong: I support sustainable development.
What I am objecting to today is this unacceptable duplication by
the federal government. Let us take the case of the endangered
species. We all know that habitat protection is a provincial
jurisdiction.
The Minister of the Environment has introduced a bill, now in
committee, that protects habitats but not species on federal
crown lands. There is an inconsistency here.
Someone suggested this analogy earlier. The federal government
is behaving like a parent who tells his neighbour how to raise
his kids but is incapable of parenting his own properly. It is
not surprising that groups such as the Sierra Club have given
the federal government a failing grade as far as environmental
protection is concerned.
In short, the federal government is only concerned about
visibility, not about funding sustainable development
technology. This dear government is so proud of waving its
beautiful red and white flag in every part of the country but
what it is really involved in is nation building, desperately
trying to create a Canadian identity.
To take another example of development, this time one related to
the economic development of the regions of Quebec, at the
present time the federal government is financing the CFDCs, the
Community Futures Development Corporations, to the tune of more
than $100 million yearly. Yet the government of Quebec already
has regional development mechanisms of its own.
Then there are the CLDs. Instead of following the Quebec trend
of allowing considerable leeway for concerted efforts at the
regional level, the federal government is focusing everything on
the centre, that is Ottawa, while disguising this operation by a
series of initiatives targeting specific groups.
The most indecent thing is that the federal government imposes
criteria of visibility in its contracts.
Of the four economic development agencies in Canada, only the
one for Quebec is under the responsibility of the Minister of
National Revenue. It requires the Canadian flag to be raised
in exchange for funding. This is what makes me say that the
federal government is more concerned with its visibility than
with regional development and the examples of this keep on
increasing.
It is clear that the funds allocated to the foundation
responsible for funding sustainable development will be tied to
the same mandate: acting as a foil to the foundation that already
exists in Quebec.
1040
I point out that the Quebec Fonds d'action pour le développement
durable has a budget of $45 million to integrate and promote
sustainable development and establish ecological infrastructures
and biodiversity, that it is experimenting with technology which
has an environmental impact, and that it provides fellowships and
internships.
Having seen the success of the Quebec model, the federal
government is trying to duplicate it from scratch at the federal
level. If the Liberals were really serious in their desire to
promote sustainable development, they would have acted together
with Quebec.
But no. Once again the story is confrontation, as in the case
of the millennium scholarships. Instead of creating a
foundation the federal government should send money to the
provincial organizations working toward the same goal as
foreseen at the issue table and having the expertise.
The members of this foundation would practically all be
appointed by the governor in council. The bill provides that
the governor in council, on the recommendation by the minister,
shall appoint 7 of the 15 directors of the foundation. However,
the other eight are appointed by them, by those appointed by the
governor in council. How ridiculous. Finally, the chairperson
and all the directors can be removed for cause by the governor
in council.
This method of appointment seems to be a roundabout way for the
federal government to hang on to the reins in an area of
provincial jurisdiction and to maintain control over an
organization that would not be accountable to parliament. As I
said earlier, I am in no way opposed to sustainable development.
Through the very able member for Sherbrooke, the Bloc Quebecois
is moving various amendments, the purpose of which is to improve
the bill and to allow the Quebec fund to continue to operate
independently of the federal government.
We are asking that those provinces that so request, or Quebec
anyway, should be able to opt out with full compensation, i.e.
25% of the fund, so as to prevent amounts being paid to an
eligible recipient when a similar project already exists in the
province concerned.
In this case, the amount should go to the already existing
projects, first, if the province concerned so requests and,
second, if it justifies its need for additional funding in terms
of objectives set at the beginning of the project.
In addition, through the voice of our very able colleague, the
member for Sherbrooke, we wish to include a clause requiring
that the members and directors of the Canadian foundation be
bilingual and, finally, that documents produced by the
organization be accessible in both French and English.
I will stop here. The bill, as drafted, does not require the
organization to be bilingual, which is unacceptable. We all
know that the Liberals are completely incapable of ensuring the
survival of French outside Quebec. Furthermore, the official
languages commissioner observes year after year that the
Liberals are not taking corrective action.
They have a wonderful opportunity here to do something about
this state of affairs by supporting our amendment.
In short, I will conclude by saying that, through this bill, the
government is trying to raise its visibility in exchange for
protecting the environment. All the federal government is doing
is hurting Canadians: millennium scholarships, regional
development. Once again, it has failed, as it did so
monumentally in the case of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this detailed
discussion about some of the aspects of Bill C-4.
I note that when the bill was debated at second reading and, for
the most part, when the bill was before the committee, there was
a great deal of positive commentary, not only from government
members but also from members of the opposition, about what the
legislation is intending to accomplish.
While some of the remarks made today have been critical and
some, quite frankly, entirely off the mark, there has been, at
least with most members, an undertone of support for what is
being attempted here, the objectives of the legislation.
Specifically, with respect to Motions No. 1, 6, and 10 that we
now have before us, Motions No. 1 and 6 are an effort to identify
in the internal operations of the proposed fund and foundation a
specific role for provincial ministers of the environment.
1045
Quite frankly, I tend to agree with the remarks made by members
of the Canadian Alliance and for the Conservative Party that such
a technique would lend itself to the possibility of
fragmentation, to potential confusion and perhaps even
inconsistency as to what the foundation is attempting to
accomplish. Therefore, I do not support Motions Nos. 1 and 6.
However, there are other reasons why I would not recommend
Motions Nos. 1 and 6 to the House. First, this legislation is
based upon more than two years of the most open, transparent and
comprehensive consultation that has probably been undertaken with
respect to any legislation. The provinces were thoroughly
involved in that process, the municipalities were involved, the
private sector was involved, academic institutions were involved
and non-governmental organizations were involved. Every aspect
of Canadian life was consulted in that two year process and the
sustainable development technology foundation is the product of
that process in which all of those players participated. The
consultation was very thorough and included all of the provinces
as well as Quebec.
When we announced the Canadian action plan with respect to
climate change last fall, which included the concept of the
sustainable development technology fund and foundation, the
Minister of the Environment and I immediately took that concept
to a joint meeting of ministers of energy and the environment
that involved all of our colleagues, federally, provincially and
territorially. At that meeting where all of this was discussed,
the chair, who was the minister from the province of Quebec, was
exceedingly supportive of what was being proposed in relation to
our action plan and all of the other various elements of the
approach that we are taking with respect to climate change.
Therefore, I can say with full confidence that the provinces
have been engaged with respect to this process and have been very
supportive with respect to the concept of a sustainable
development technology fund and foundation.
I would also add that the process of consultation is not yet
over. We have established a national implementation strategy.
We have established a process of rolling three year business
plans to continue the work with respect to all of the initiatives
we would undertake with respect to climate change so the provinces
and all other stakeholders would have further ample, ongoing
opportunities to have input and be a part of this whole process.
Therefore, again I would say, based on that consultation which
has taken place, based on the fact that consultations will
continue through the national implementation strategy process,
based on the need for national consistency, which I mentioned at
the outset, and based on the very practical fact that this is a
foundation at arm's length from government, meaning not only the
Government of Canada but the governments of the provinces too, it
seems to me that Motions Nos. 1 and 6 should not be accepted by
the House and that the structure that has been described in the
legislation itself should be proceeded with.
On Motion No. 10, I would simply make the point that the gist of
the motion is already covered in the legislation itself. In
other words, Motion No. 10 is redundant. Bill C-4 requires
annual reporting on the foundation's activities. That reporting
must include, among other things: the foundation's audited
financial statements; detailed statements on the foundation's
investment portfolio and its funding activities; a statement of
the foundation's plans for fulfilling the objectives of the fund
for future years; and an evaluation of the overall results
achieved by the funding of projects year by year and
accumulatively since the very start of the foundation.
1050
If we read what is actually proposed in Motion No. 10 with a
proposed change to clause 30(1)(c), it seems to me that in the
language of the legislation every point that has been suggested
and the amendment is already covered in the bill itself.
The reporting that would be required of the foundation would be
made public. It would be tabled in parliament so that members of
parliament would have access to it. If members wished to discuss
that report in detail before any standing committee of the House,
they would be at liberty to do that.
The funding agreement that is contemplated by this legislation
would spell out the requirements of the annual report in detail.
In addition, the funding agreement would call for an independent
interim and final evaluation to ascertain the results that are
achieved, including measurable results against the funds'
objectives and, of course, the funding agreement would be
available to the auditor general.
I simply make the point that while I understand what the
Conservative amendment is trying to accomplish, all of the things
that are contemplated in the amendment are already embedded in
the legislation itself. Therefore, the proposed amendment is
redundant.
For all of those reasons, I would recommend to members of the
House that Motion Nos. 1, 6 and 10 should be defeated because
they do not add anything that is material or new in terms of this
legislation.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to speak about the motions that are before the
House, I would like to reflect upon the entire bill and the new
crown corporation that would be created.
What I see equivalent to a crown corporation is an entire new
bureaucracy. The minister said it was not a crown corporation.
It would be an entirely new bureaucracy that would need telephone
lines, fax machines, computers, offices, furniture, expense
accounts and all sorts of reports. It would be a huge new
bureaucracy that would cost an enormous amount of money for
taxpayers when the government already has in existence literally
hundreds of organizations that could spend money on grants to
deal with the issues which the bill deals with. It is a waste of
taxpayer money.
It would be worse if Motions Nos. 1 and 6 passed because then it
would involve provincial governments. They also would need extra
staff, extra phone lines, extra fax machines and all the other
stuff to make it work. The universities, other crown
corporations and government departments have plenty of staff,
many of whom are probably working on the types of projects that
the bill would facilitate. There is no need to create an entire
new bureaucracy.
If the Government of Canada was a corporation, the first thing
management would be asked to do, if someone came with a request
for this type of project, would be to look at the overall budget
of the corporation and the aims of the corporation to see whether
the project could be carried out using existing staff and
facilities. That is exactly what we should have done instead of
creating a whole new bureaucracy.
Second, if there was no way of doing it without setting up a new
department within the corporation, the management would be asked
to see if it could get rid of something else that had served out
its useful time. Do we see a single facility disappearing? Do
we see a single dollar being cut from the government
expenditures? Not one dollar is disappearing. All that we see
is another bureaucracy, another kingdom to be built that year
after year will ask for more and more money from the taxpayers'
purse.
Why are we doing it? For no other reason than we can because it
is other people's money. We do not have to ask anybody. The
minister can go ahead, ram it through, set up the new bureaucracy
and, despite his assurances earlier, I have absolutely no doubt
nor would my constituents that there will be a ton of patronage
appointments for that new bureaucracy. You can bet your bippy on
that, Mr. Speaker.
1055
I have no confidence whatsoever that this new bureaucracy will
achieve the aims that it is set out to do. It will turn out like
the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, a totally
unaccountable body that blows away $120 million a year with
nobody able to obtain information about what it does and with no
accountability. For years I tried to get information about
specific grants that were given out by SSHRC. It is absolutely
hopeless. I cannot get past the bureaucratic walls that are
there to find out why it is wasting money.
The council gave away $2,267,350 for someone to work on the
history of the book in Canada. Do members think they can find
anything that was produced for that $2,267,000? It was a
complete waste of taxpayers' dollars.
How about the $62,000 for an investigation of the motivations
underlying undergraduates alcohol consumption behaviour? How
about the $50,900 for cabarets, nightclubs and burlesque,
investigating the subculture of erotic entertainment in post war
Vancouver?
If there was even a slim chance that we could get information
about the way this money is being spent, I would feel more
confident about groups like the SSHRC and I would feel a little
more confident that what would be created under the bill would
actually produce something useful.
Let us look at some other examples from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council. There was $515,000 spent for the
impact of race and gender on social cohesion in light of
globalization. There was $16,000 spent for an investigation of
attacks on aristocratic behaviour in 18th century Britain. What
use could there be to the taxpayers of Canada to blow away
$16,000 studying aristocratic behaviour and the attacks on it in
Britain in the 18th century?
These are small components of that $120 million that SSHRC blew
away that could have better been used, even if it went to the
roads in B.C. In the House three weeks ago I asked why B.C. was
been completely cut off highway funding for five years. The $120
million could have widened the Trans-Canada Highway in B.C. There
was $20,000 spent for a study of the changing mode of
reproduction among the resettled forages of Kedah, Malaysia.
Is it any wonder that I get letters from my constituents
complaining about the way this place blows away money?
I said earlier in my speech that we do it for no other reason
than we can. If anybody in the House was asked to put in $10 or
$20 to contribute to the $125,000 for the Tell Malada
archeological project investigating the urban life in the
semi-arid highlands of central Jordan, I bet nobody would put $10
in there. They would not be interested because it would be their
own money. That is the big danger of this bill.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
WORLD TUBERCULOSIS DAY
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Saturday, March 24 is World Tuberculosis Day. The theme
of this year's global campaign is “Directly Observed Treatment,
Short-course—TB Cure for all”.
In commemoration of World TB Day, Results Canada and the
Canadian Lung Association hosted an awareness raising breakfast
yesterday, where the Minister for International Cooperation
reaffirmed Canada's commitment of over $32 million to reduce TB
deaths by 50% by the year 2010.
1100
Tuberculosis is killing more people today than ever before. It
knows no borders. It causes two to three million deaths annually
and more than one-third of the world's population is infected
with tuberculosis.
The World Health Organization in collaboration with various
governments like Canada's is working to establish a new drug
facility to treat TB. I call on all my colleagues to join the
global campaign to stop TB.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, how well we attend to the concerns of
our veterans is a measure of our national conscience.
Corporal Christian McEachern of Edmonton is only one of many who
bear deep scars to their health and soul brought on by war
service for our country. Corporal McEachern's mother is in our
nation's capital to appeal for our help.
To understand and begin the long process of treatment, we must
first officially recognize as war veterans those who have
experienced the horrors of war. Bullets, terror and contaminants
can each do harm to the human form.
We must do much better for our soldiers. We must recognize all
of our country's war veterans. We must listen to their calls for
help when they return to their families and homes from missions
abroad for Canada.
* * *
KIDS HELP PHONE
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Kids
Help Phone is Canada's only national bilingual 24 hour
counselling and referral service for children and youth. Every
day Kids Help Phone answers approximately 1,000 calls from
children across the country at 1-800-668-6868.
Last year over 9,500 children in the local area, including many
kids in my riding of Ottawa Centre, turned to Kids Help Phone for
assistance.
This Sunday, March 25, the Ottawa chapter of Kids Help Phone and
Autodesk Canada present “An Evening with Oscar”, an Academy
Awards party in support of Kids Help Phone. Similar events will
be happening in Halifax, St. John's Newfoundland and Vancouver.
For more information on being a part of the glitz and glamour of
Oscar night in Ottawa, I invite members to call 860-1529 and
support their local chapter of Kids Help Phone.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN SPORTS AWARDS
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to congratulate all the winners and candidates in the 28th
Canadian Sport Awards held on March 20. Our athletes'
performances illustrate the true spirit of sports and make
Canada proud.
I would like to pay special tribute to Nancy Lee, the executive
director at CBC sports, who was awarded the commemorative Frank
Ratcliffe award given each year to a person or business that has
contributed in a major way to the Canadian sporting system.
Ms. Lee has worked for the CBC for many years. In her first
year as the executive director of CBC sports, she raised the
profile of amateur sport coverage and of women in sports.
[English]
I also congratulate Lori Johnstone, a member of the national
women's racquetball team from 1991 to 1996, for winning the
Johnny F. Bassett memorial award.
* * *
WORLD POETRY DAY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Wednesday, March 21, more than 400 people gathered at
the National Library of Canada to celebrate World Poetry Day. The
event, “Poetry of the Americas”, featured the reading of a poem
chosen by each of the 26 countries of the Americas.
The event was organized by the National Library of Canada in
co-operation with the Department of Canadian Heritage, the
Canadian Commission for UNESCO, and the embassies and high
commissions of the participating countries.
Poetry helps us see. It gives us insight and a better
understanding of how others live the human experience in their
culture and in their place and time. World Poetry Day causes us
to reflect on our humanity and our need for art and beauty. A
world without literature, art, music or poetry would be
inconceivably dull.
The arts help us to understand and celebrate our lives as
Canadians. They allow us to share our vision and our values with
the world. We are proud to support and promote poetry and poets
whose words provoke, excite, amuse and enlighten us all.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, farmers are plagued with enough problems negatively
impacting their ability to produce the safe and high quality food
products Canadians have come to expect. We certainly do not need
to import more trouble.
I therefore call upon the government to ensure that the most
stringent and effective precautions are taken to stop foot and
mouth disease from entering into and spreading in the country.
1105
The single largest source of income in the Alberta agriculture
industry is derived from the cattle industry. It would be
absolutely devastating if foot and mouth disease were to strike
my province.
Knowing this, my constituents are anxiously calling my office
expressing concerns and asking that British soldiers not be
deployed to camps Wainwright, Suffield and Cold Lake until the
disease is contained in the United Kingdom.
School trips to the United Kingdom are being cancelled. Although
greatly disappointed, our students respect and understand that
this sacrifice is necessary to protect the livelihood of their
families and neighbours.
I commend the leadership demonstrated by the school boards, the
teachers and particularly the students of Crowfoot. I call upon
the government to—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Peterborough.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Polish
veterans were granted the same rights as Canadian veterans
following World War II. This was in recognition of the
extraordinary service and sacrifice of Polish troops during that
war. Yet since 1995, Polish veterans have not been admitted to
Ste. Anne's Veterans Hospital. Are our memories so short that we
have already forgotten these veterans and what they did for the
free world?
I urge that Polish veterans in Canada be given full veterans
rights immediately. These veterans deserve the wholehearted
support of the House of Commons. Let us act on this while there
is still time.
* * *
[Translation]
JEAN-GUY LABRECQUE
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the occasion
of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, awards were given out by the Comité de vigilance
et d'action pour l'harmonisation des relations interculturelles
en Estrie.
These awards are public recognition for achievement or exemplary
commitment against racism. They recognize the action of people
who have shown interest in preventing and fighting racism in our
community.
This year, the award in the individual category went to Jean-Guy
Labrecque, an electrician and a very committed volunteer in his
parish. He won this award for his work in his community to
integrate groups of immigrants from the former Yugoslavia and
Burundi.
In many instances, he had personal contact with these people and
helped them integrate. His initiative shows us that little
things done every day contribute to preventing racism and
discrimination.
On behalf of the people of the riding of Sherbrooke, I offer my
warmest congratulations—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
* * *
[English]
NOROUZ
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this week many Muslims throughout the
world are celebrating Norouz, meaning new day, marking the first
day of the year according to the Persian calendar. Families meet
to share in celebratory meals, gifts are exchanged and special
prayers are recited for good luck in the new year.
Norouz is a cultural festival that is part of Islam's respect
for pluralism and diversity and symbolizes hope and new
beginnings. The festival is characterized by common sentiments
of joy, renewal and hope and brings many Muslims together, united
by a shared heritage and allegiance. It also reflects a great
diversity in histories, language and culture, which results in
diverse expressions of this festival.
Norouz is also a day of thanksgiving. Muslims count their
blessings and look forward to a new year full of challenges and
opportunities. It is also a commitment of spiritual renewal to
see every day as an occasion to better ourselves.
On behalf of the official opposition, I would like to wish all
Muslims in Canada a joyous Norouz and all the best in the new
year.
* * *
SPACE STATION MIR
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today Mir came back to earth in a fiery splash in the South
Pacific. Space station Mir's planned lifespan was five years. It
stayed in space three times as long, more than 15 years, circling
the earth more than 80,000 times.
Mir welcomed aboard more than 100 people from 11 different
countries. Some stayed a few days, others for months, and
cosmonaut Sergei Kirkaliev for more than two years.
Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield visited Mir in the
mid-nineties. Fittingly, he will be visiting Mir's successor,
International Space Station Alpha, in April when Canadarm II is
installed.
Some say this is a sad day for space exploration. I disagree.
It is a day of achievement, a day to acknowledge Russian
know-how, and a day to remember as humanity pursues its quest of
the high frontier.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, relatively
recent legislative policy and administrative changes to Canada
pension plan disability benefits are having a devastating impact
on Canadians with disabilities.
More than 200,000 men and women seeking disability benefits have
been denied in the past five years alone, more than two-thirds of
them without even a cursory investigation by HRDC into the
validity of their claims. For those appealing rejection notices,
the process can be incredibly daunting and complex.
1110
The number of appeals is increasing at all levels, but most
appellants are ill prepared and overwhelmed by the process. CPP
disability pensioners attempting to work or participate in the
vocational rehabilitation program are often reassessed with a
view to reclassification and partial or total loss of benefits.
It is high time for the minister responsible for HRDC to review
a system that is out of control and stacked totally in favour of
saving money and against helping Canadians who are disabled.
* * *
[Translation]
PREMIER OF QUEBEC
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
premier of Quebec, Bernard Landry, presented a game plan to
allow the people of Quebec to examine their future and select
the political status that will allow them to fully and freely
exercise, in sovereignty, the areas of jurisdiction their
development requires.
This game plan includes an update on the Bélanger-Campeau
Commission's study of Quebec sovereignty, the creation of a
commission of experts to be headed by taxation specialist Yves
Séguin, on the fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and Quebec, the
setting in motion of a set of vigorous measures in favour of
regional development and social solidarity.
The effect of this speech by the Premier of Quebec on us Bloc
Quebecois MPs is like a deep breath of fresh air. Mr. Landry
can rest assured that we too will put our shoulders to the wheel
in order to fully achieve the potential of Quebec, that is its
sovereignty.
* * *
[English]
OXFORD
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on February
21, I rose to offer best wishes to the Oxford-Zorra Girls Tug of
War Team and the Ingersoll Pipe Band in their trip to Taiwan to
participate in the second annual MacKay Memorial Tug of War
Championship.
I am happy to report that the trip was a great success. The
team and band members were overwhelmed by the hospitality shown
by their Taiwanese hosts. This was due in part because our team
and band represented Oxford county, the birthplace of
Presbyterian missionary Reverend George Leslie MacKay, who is
considered a hero by the Taiwanese. Woodstock mayor John
Geoghegan said that members of the pipe band were treated like
The Beatles by mobs of adoring fans.
Not only was our tug of war team the first ever ladies team to
compete in Asia, they also scored podium finishes in both the
indoor and outdoor competition by winning bronze and silver
respectively.
I wish to extend congratulations to Oxford's newest heroes.
* * *
FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect, or
FAS and FAE, are lifelong mental and physical defects that can
occur in individuals whose mothers consume large amounts of
alcohol during pregnancy.
FAS victims are physically and mentally challenged, as their
brains fail to develop. They often suffer from facial
distortions, a short attention span and hyperactivity as well as
spinal and internal organ abnormalities.
The effects of alcohol damage are not as apparent in the
physical appearance and mental capacity of FAE victims, but the
damage is apparent in their substantially lower capacity to
engage in life skills.
No one can predict the frequency or severity of FAS and FAE in
babies born to pregnant mothers who drink, yet one thing is
certain. If expectant mothers can refrain from drinking alcohol
and their partners are supportive by also choosing to abstain,
society can prevent the needless and permanent victimization of
children due to the tragic indiscretions of their parents.
Education, treatment and research are the answer. We urge the
government to engage and act now.
* * *
WILLIAM B. SUTHERLAND
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured today to pay tribute to Colonel William B.
“Suds” Sutherland, who died recently.
Colonel Sutherland joined the Canadian forces at the age of 17
during the second world war. His service included Korea, Vietnam
and Malaysia. He was regimental colonel of the Princess Patricia
Canadian Light Infantry.
His service to Canada continued in the public service in senior
positions, including the Privy Council Office.
Bill never retired. He continued to study and teach at Carleton
University, where his family has established an endowment fund in
his name.
I remember Bill Sutherland best as an involved if unlikely
political activist. He did outstanding work on the issues of
Canadian children and led the way in making child poverty the top
priority of the Liberal Party and the government.
To Bill's wife Helen and his family, I express my sincere
condolences and my deep appreciation for being able to share a
part of his life.
* * *
DEWDNEY—ALOUETTE
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the riding of Dewdney—Alouette has once again lived
up to its reputation as the hotbed of high school basketball in
British Columbia.
The Pitt Meadows Marauders won the inaugural grade eight boys
provincial championship earlier this month. I wish to express
congratulations to coaches Steve Anderson and Rich Goulet and
their hardworking team.
1115
The Heritage Park Highlanders also continued their dominance as
they successfully defended their title as senior girls AAA
basketball champions. Special congratulations go to coach Bruce
Langford, tournament MVP Kim Smith, defensive MVP Sarah Stroh and
the first team all star Katja Fuess. Kudos to the entire team
that is already favoured at next year's championships.
Honourable mention also goes to the Maple Ridge Ramblers that
picked up fourth place in the tournament and to the Thomas Haney
Thunder that finished eleventh.
I congratulate all players, coaches and parents that made these
accomplishments possible. Their hard work and determination have
paid off once again.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
PRIME MINISTER
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has known all
along that he could not let it come out that he had a personal
financial stake in the Grand-Mère Golf Club and that he stood to
become more wealthy by using his influence to pour millions of
public dollars into increasing the value of a nearby hotel.
Now there is new evidence confirming that he had a direct
conflict of interest in the way he used his high office. How
could Canadians trust their affairs to someone who used his power
over their money to feather his own nest?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the hon. member has said in her question is not
only wrong. In fact it is a terrible attempt to smear the Prime
Minister, without any factual foundation.
The Prime Minister did not stand to benefit financially from any
representations he made. He was owed a debt. The value of the
debt would not change whether the value of the golf course went
up or whether it went down.
I say to my hon. friend that she exemplifies how desperate she
and her party are in raising these unwarranted assumptions. Why
does she not get back to the real business of the country, the
matters of real concern to Canadians?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I guess we have to give the Deputy
Prime Minister an A for effort, but we do not hear any
clapping from the public.
Today's revelations explain why the Prime Minister did not dare
go public with the documents about who really owned the golf
course shares because the facts could not support his version of
the events.
Do not the government and the Prime Minister see how necessary
it is to give the truth to Canadians and just deal with this
issue in an honest and open manner?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the public is obviously and definitely not applauding
the Alliance for its unwarranted assertions. The Alliance is not
using these opportunities to talk about the economy. It is not
using them to talk about agriculture. It is not using them to
talk about the environment. It is obviously because the public
thinks we are doing a good job and it is a vote of confidence.
The Prime Minister has been factual. He has been truthful.
Those who are asserting otherwise are terribly wrong, and they
should admit it.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, surely Canadians deserve better than
this from people they trusted, people they believed, and people,
now it turns out, that were hiding and covering up a very serious
situation where a prime minister was using his public office for
his own personal financial gain, to feather his own nest in
retirement. Canadians need to hear the truth of this matter.
I am asking the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister to
tell Canadians what really happened, to come clean with all the
documents and all the facts so that this matter—
The Deputy Speaker: Before I give the floor to the Deputy
Prime Minister for his reply, I remind hon. members that the
Chair can be somewhat generous in terms of the time for questions
and answers, but they should try to stay as close as possible.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when it comes to truth, the truth should start in the
questions of the hon. member. What she alleges is not true.
1120
The Prime Minister has been upfront, factual and truthful. He
has said that he has not been involved in any conflict of
interest. He has not done anything contrary to the ethics or the
rules in question.
The hon. member ought to recognize that. She is using vague
words. She is raising insinuations but she has provided no facts
in support of her insinuations because what she says and implies
in her questions is not true.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, let us talk about some truth and some
facts. One week ago today, Melissa Marcotte phoned me in my
office, pleading on behalf of the Prime Minister and telling me
her father had been the Prime Minister's best friend all his
life. For the 37 years of her life she was like a daughter to the
Prime Minister. Today she is saying “I feel I have been made a
fool of. I work for a bank. They may dismiss me”.
I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that we should be on the
issue of the dollar but, first, should we not hire Ted Hughes as
an independent judge to clear the air on this whole issue?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first thing the hon. member might do is to ask Ted
Hughes to look into the unwarranted assertions in his questions.
The Prime Minister has stated definitely from his seat in the
House of Commons that he did not own the shares in question after
he became Prime Minister. Those are the facts. When it comes to
matters of the records of the company in question, he has no
right because he is not a shareholder to have access to these
records or any control over them.
The Prime Minister has been upfront and truthful. I wish it
could be said in the same way of the allegations of the Alliance
Party and the member who has just spoken.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister was not
listening. I made no accusations.
I stated that Melissa Marcotte phoned me last Friday as a friend
of the Prime Minister, as she put it, “to pull my leader off
this case because it was unfair”. Today she is saying “I feel
I have been made a fool of”. She also said “I was trying to
clear him now and I cannot clear him and I do not want to be the
one bringing him down”.
These are serious accusations from a 37 year close personal
friend of the Prime Minister whose father was the Prime
Minister's best friend. It is time; Canadians have a right to
get the clear issues. Ted Hughes should be hired by the
government as an independent judge, as he has lots of experience,
to clear the air once and for all.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has cleared the air. He stated the
facts from his place in the House of Commons. The problem is the
fog that is being created by the Alliance Party in its desperate
attempt to keep itself shored up in public opinion. Where does
it stand on the economy? Where does it stand on the environment?
Where does it stand on tax cuts?
None of these things matter to members of that party any more.
Why do they not get real on matters of concern to Canadians? They
realize there is nothing they can attack because the government
is doing a good job, and in desperation they are turning to these
unwarranted insinuations and innuendoes.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in June
1999, the Bloc Quebecois asked the Prime Minister if he was
still a shareholder of the Grand-Mère golf course. The Prime
Minister replied that he had sold his shares in November 1993.
This morning, Mélissa Marcotte, a person close to the Prime
Minister, said that he was still a shareholder of the Grand-Mère
golf course after November 1993. This information was confirmed
by Gilles Corriveau, a spokesman for Louis Michaud, also a
shareholder.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the Prime Minister's
claim that he sold his shares in 1993 and was therefore not in a
conflict of interest no longer holds, and that he misled the
House and the public at large?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Absolutely not,
Mr. Speaker. Howard Wilson told Newsworld:
I have access to all the documents. I saw all the documents. I
was able to examine them. This is personal information on the
parties, including people other than Mr. Chrétien, but I can
confirm to my full satisfaction that his shares were sold in
1993 and that they were never back in his possession.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for over
two years now the Bloc Quebecois has been asking the Prime
Minister to table the agreement confirming the sale of his
shares. He has always refused to do so. This morning, Ms.
Marcotte and Mr. Corriveau stated that the Prime Minister had
been a shareholder until 1999.
If the Prime Minister refuses to table the bill of sale, is it
simply because this document does not exist and he—and this is
clearer than ever—misled the House and the public?
1125
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
reject the hon. member's questions, because they are not based
on facts.
The Prime Minister provided the facts to this House and he has
no authority to have documents published after he has sold his
shares.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during
the election campaign, the Prime Minister again trotted out the
ethics counsellor to improve his image.
Today, in a Toronto newspaper, this same counsellor clearly
admits that the facts are not known to him and that he is far
from being an expert in corporate records, a small detail.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the ethics counsellor
is nothing more than a smokescreen, a puppet, who must resign
immediately, and that the Prime Minister can therefore no longer
take cover behind him?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
is no need to discredit a public servant of long standing who is
doing excellent work. He is doing his job with honesty.
The opposition parties had no problem with the ethics counsellor
when they asked him to conduct investigations. It is only when
the investigations failed to substantiate the opposition's
charges that they began to discredit the ethics counsellor.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
necessary to be familiar with corporate records and books to
understand what has gone on since 1993, a small detail.
For several weeks now, the Prime Minister has also been holding
up in his defence the RCMP's opinion that there was nothing to
investigate.
But Melissa Marcotte, whose family holds shares in the golf
club, and Gilles Corriveau, a spokesman for the Michaud family,
and also a shareholder, said that the Prime Minister had been a
shareholder after 1993.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister finally admit that the Prime
Minister can no longer hide behind the RCMP?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, he
begins by trying to discredit a public servant of long standing.
Now he is setting out to discredit the RCMP.
The RCMP operates at arm's length from the government. It has
done its job. It has said that there were no grounds for
continuing to investigate the matter. This is a fact that the
opposition does not like but it is a fact all the same.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
oh what a tangled web the government weaves on this. Does the
Deputy Prime Minister not realize that it is the Prime Minister
himself, by refusing to table all the relevant documents, by
refusing to put all the facts on the table, who is holding up the
business of this parliament and of this country?
If he wants to talk about the economy, agriculture, the
environment, free trade and all the things that we want to talk
about here and in fact have kept talking about, it is the Prime
Minister who can release parliament by setting up the independent
inquiry we are asking for today.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no reason for an inquiry. The Prime Minister
has stated the facts from his place in the House of Commons.
This has been confirmed by the ethics counsellor. This has also
been confirmed by the decision of the RCMP that there is no basis
to look into the matter further.
If the opposition is not asking questions it thinks should be
asked on the economy, on agriculture or on the environment, let
it bear the blame itself. Let it not throw the blame on anyone
else.
It is the responsibility of opposition members if they think
they do not need to carry on the work of the country as the
opposition. Let them explain their lack. Let them explain their
emptiness. Let them explain their failure to the Canadian
people.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, while the Deputy Prime Minister tries to dodge a bullet
for the Prime Minister, the government is preparing to shower
protesters in Quebec City with plastic bullets.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not see that there are enough
allegations, counterallegations and lack of information that
would decide the matter once and for all? Unless the Prime
Minister is prepared to put that information on the table today
or very soon, there is a need for a public inquiry, an
independent inquiry perhaps headed by Mr. Hughes or someone like
him of equal stature, so that we can get on with the nation's
business.
The Prime Minister can clear his name if that is what the facts
do and we can get around to talking about other things. Let the
Prime Minister do what he needs to do.
1130
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has answered fully in this House. I
think the hon. member should only blame himself. In trying to
ask a question without basis, when it comes to bullets, he shot
himself in the foot because there is no reason for an inquiry.
He is holding up the business of the country and is using
question period instead of doing what the opposition is supposed
to do, which is to ask questions on matters of importance and
meaning to Canadians. Let him bear the burden of that himself.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister has admitted that starting in 1996 he
intervened as Prime Minister with the Business Development Bank
of Canada to help secure a loan for the Auberge Grand-Mère.
The ethics counsellor has now confirmed that in the period 1996
to 1999 the Prime Minister took part, through his lawyer, in
negotiations for the sale of the shares in the Grand-Mère golf
course to Louis Michaud Investments.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether the Prime
Minister did receive money as a result of that sale of those
shares?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, the hon. member is raising something that is not
news. It was reported that the lawyer for the Prime Minister was
involved in trying to get the debt in question settled that arose
out of the shares being sold. This was reported in the
National Post on January 23, 1999. I talked about this in
the House in June 1999. This is old news. It has been reported.
The hon. member is trying to develop something out of nothing and
he ought to admit that.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is a clear and irrefutable conflict of interest.
The conflict of interest code makes the Prime Minister the sole
judge of his own conduct. It is now clear that the Prime
Minister was simultaneously involved in lobbying to secure a loan
for the Auberge Grand-Mère and in negotiating the sale of shares
in a adjacent golf course, the value of which could have been
affected by these same loans.
Does the government believe that it is appropriate for the Prime
Minister to be the only judge of his own conduct? Would the
Deputy Prime Minister, as a senior minister in the government, do
his duty to parliament and to Canada and ask the Prime Minister
to absent himself from these matters? Would he take the
leadership that is within his grasp and call a public inquiry
under the Inquires Act—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no basis and no reason for an inquiry. The
hon. member is wrong when he says that a conflict of interest has
been established. What has happened in just the opposite. A
conflict of interest has not been established.
I know the hon. member is desperate to keep himself afloat
politically, but he should not do that at the expense of the work
of this House. He ought to realize that his own desperation does
not justify what he is trying to do now. It is wrong.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in response to a letter from the official opposition,
the industry minister sent Industry Canada officials to look at
the corporate registry of the Grand-Mère golf course.
Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister told the House that he would
disclose the results of that investigation. It is time for that
disclosure to take place.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister stand up today in the House and
inform Canadians of the results of that inquiry and would he
table all the relevant documents?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member started off on the wrong foot because he
has not quoted me accurately as far as I can recall. I said that
I would report on whether the relevant official had inspected the
books of the company in question.
I want to confirm that the official in question attended at the
office of the lawyers for the company in question. He took
copies of the documents. He is examining them. When he has
completed his examination, I am sure that the requirements of the
law will be complied with.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it seems to me that there is a lot of foot dragging over
there, and I would like to know why. It seems to me that they
are buying time for somebody to concoct another new story to
protect the Prime Minister. What is really happening is that
they are buying time when it should not take any time at all to
put those documents on the table.
Since the Prime Minister has not been forthcoming with Canadians
about the Grand-Mère Golf Club, will the government appoint a
judicial inquiry, independent of the Prime Minister's office, to
investigate this very serious matter?
1135
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no basis and no reason for a public inquiry.
Just because the hon. member is concocting questions without
basis, that does not provide a reason for a public inquiry.
I ask the Alliance Party again, why is it in effect confirming
that the government and the Prime Minister are doing a good job
in the areas of the environment, the economy, the work of the
human resources department for children, on medicare and on a
whole range of other matters? In ignoring questions on these
issues, it is saying that we are doing a good job. I suppose we
should thank the Alliance Party, but it deserves no thanks from
Canadians for anything.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the facts reported to us today by someone close to the Prime
Minister, Mélissa Marcotte, are very serious indeed.
According to these revelations, the Prime Minister appears to
have been misleading the House for close to two years with his
responses relating to the nature of his interests in the
Grand-Mère golf club.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that misleading the House,
as he has done for nearly two years, constitutes contempt of the
House?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has not misled the House. The insinuations made
by the hon. member in his question are incorrect and he must
retract them. They are totally unfounded.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister must be realizing that his lines of defence
are failing one after the other.
After his ethics counsellor, the RCMP, his buddy Asper and now
Mélissa Marcotte, the Prime Minister has no other choice but to
come and explain himself before the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs in order to clarify this matter
fully.
Does the government leader commit to supporting the motion the
Bloc Quebecois plans to introduce for the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs to be convened so that the Prime
Minister, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, may come and give
his version of the facts?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
insinuations are not facts. The hon. member is the one painting
the situation black, after the Prime Minister has clarified on
numerous occasions that there is no conflict of interest,
because he sold the shares in question long before becoming
Prime Minister. Those are the facts.
* * *
[English]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor stated in committee this week
that he had seen all the documents, and yet it is clear that he
had not seen the most important one, the share registry of the
golf course.
Now the ethics counsellor defends his lack of due diligence by
saying that he is not an expert in corporate records.
Would the Minister of Industry fire the ethics counsellor, both
for misleading the standing committee and for incompetence?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will answer today for the Minister of Industry.
I do not think there is any basis for firing the ethics
counsellor who, as I said in French, is a distinguished public
servant of long standing and a person of integrity. He is doing
a good job. Just because the hon. member does not want to accept
that, it does not change the facts of the matter.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the facts are that the ethics counsellor is doing a
good job of trying to protect the Prime Minister, not his job as
ethics counsellor.
The industry minister stated that the name of the Prime Minister
was not on the shareholder registry, but it is. So much for
trusting that minister. We can no longer trust the words of the
Prime Minister. We can no longer trust the words of the
industry minister nor of the ethics counsellor.
When will the government call for an independent inquiry into
the Grand-Mère mess?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no basis and no reason for an inquiry. The
facts have been brought out in the House of Commons by the Prime
Minister himself.
If the opposition parties did not think that the ethics
counsellor was a person of integrity who would do his job, why
did they write to him last fall? Why did they write to him a few
weeks ago to look into matters? By writing to him last fall and
by writing to him again just a few weeks ago, they are in effect
admitting that they are wrong in trying to attack his integrity.
They accepted his role up to the point where he refused to be
their lap dog. That is the only reason they are against him.
* * *
1140
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 amending the Employment Insurance Act
is under fire.
The day before yesterday, the auditor general said that the
government should withdraw clause 9 of the bill, which would
allow the government to set the premium rate, thus making it
legal for the government to misappropriate billions of dollars
of surplus from the employment insurance fund.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development act on this
request by the auditor general, an impartial player who condemns
the subterfuge that would legalize the misappropriation of the
$30 billion dollar surplus in the fund? Will she withdraw this
disgusting clause?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. What the auditor
general said about this particular aspect of the bill was:
So I think the bill buys some time to come up with a better way of
calculating the rates paid by the workers and their employers.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister can choose the quote she likes.
He also said he would like the clause withdrawn.
Also, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, which is very
critical of Bill C-2, has unanimously agreed to report other
amendments to the employment insurance system to the House of
Commons by June 1 in order to permit real reform of the system.
Is the minister prepared to act on the committee's
recommendations?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the standing
committee for its work on Bill C-2. I understand it heard from
over 60 witnesses so I can see why it would want to provide a
compilation of that information to the government. I look
forward to receiving it.
I would remind the hon. member that as a part of Bill C-2, we
commit as a government to continue to monitor and assess the
impact of the employment insurance provisions on Canadians. It
is what we have been doing in the past number of years and what
we will continue to do. Certainly the work of the committee will
inform that ongoing review.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Secretary
of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women delivered
what could be called the most hollow of apologies for what she
termed a mistake. There was no mistake.
Her statement about a cross burning incident and a letter in
Prince George was in fact a well rehearsed fabrication. There
was no letter from the mayor, there was no cross burning
incident and, of course, it never happened in any city in British
Columbia.
Could the secretary of state tell us why, in a callous attempt
to justify her own role, she chose to embellish among one of the
ugliest sides of our society? Why did she do that?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the secretary of state said yesterday that she had made
a mistake and offered a total apology in that regard. I do not
see why the hon. member and the House should not accept her
statement in the same way we accepted the statement of his
colleague with regard to his phony radio interviews. If we
accept the one, I think, in fairness, we have to accept the other.
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, again, this was no mistake. This was
a well rehearsed question and answer. She knew what she was
going to say. She named the city of Prince George. She said
that there was a letter from the mayor of Prince George. The
next day she said, in her hollow apology, that maybe it was not
Prince George and maybe there was no cross burning, but she
still maintained she had a letter.
Could the government instruct the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism and the Status of Women to produce that letter
to the House at the earliest possible date next week and to
the media, which I am sure is dying to see it as well?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat that the hon. secretary of state
has dealt with the matter in an appropriate fashion by admitting
she made a mistake and apologizing for it. When someone does
this, the traditions and conventions of the House are that the
admission of error and the apology are to be accepted.
If that is not the case, then we should not be accepting what
the Alliance member from Alberta said about his phony interviews.
We have accepted that. I think, in fairness, the Alliance
people should exhibit the same forbearance and acceptance of the
apology and admission of mistake of the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism and the Status of Women.
* * *
JUSTICE
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question for the Minister of Justice.
As we see the Internet and technology continue to develop
dramatically, we recognize that this can pose a threat to our
children's safety. Could the minister inform the House of the
measures that can be taken to further safeguard Canada's
children?
1145
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very
important issue. As we all know, the Internet and technology can
be used for good but also used for ill, in particular in the
exploitation of our children. That is why I was very pleased
this week to introduce Bill C-15 on behalf of the government, in
which we create a new offence of Internet luring.
In addition, we will modernize the criminal code so that no one
is under any illusion or misunderstanding, in that the criminal
code will prohibit transmission and will prohibit making
available the exportation or the intentionally—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime
Minister, in reference to the shameful conduct of the Secretary
of State for Multiculturalism, pointed out that the member for
Edmonton—Strathcona apologized for his conduct. He said the
minister did the same thing. The member for Edmonton—Strathcona
apologized. He was fired from his critic's job and sent to the
backbenches of that caucus.
How low does the ethical bar have to go? What standards exist
for the Prime Minister with respect to the conduct of ministers
in the government? Can a minister slander the community of
Prince George, a community that has won awards for human rights?
Can a minister lie to the people—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to ask
the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, who is a long serving
member of the House, to withdraw the word lie.
Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the very
serious allegation that has been made, but quite clearly, in
light of the seriousness of the conduct of the minister and
recognizing the traditions of the House, I said the minister had
lied with impunity. I withdraw those words and say she
fabricated.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's assertion that the secretary of state
fabricated something deliberately is false.
If the hon. member is the kind of person he claims to be with
respect to integrity, he would admit that, accept that, and let
us move on to fight together against racism, to fight together
against discrimination and to fight for the issues I thought were
important to him.
I guess that is not the case, from the unfounded nature of his
allegations against an immigrant to this country, a person of
colour who has devoted her life to fighting against
discrimination and racism and will continue to do so.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, CPP
disability benefits are now so stacked against disabled Canadians
that advocates are stepping forward to help appellants and to
restore some measure of balance, but HRDC officials stand accused
of using extreme intimidation tactics against some of these
advocates.
An Alberta advocate was denied access to accompany an appellant
into a hearing, while in Saskatchewan an anonymous complaint to
the law society that an advocate was impersonating a lawyer
turned out to originate in HRDC itself.
Would the minister confirm that these incidents have occurred
and tell the House what steps she has taken to ensure there will
be no repetition?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the CPP disability program is an
extraordinarily important one for Canadians.
Ensuring there is a process where Canadians can come forward and
their applications are reviewed fully and fairly is important. I
am glad to say that we have added numbers to our boards across
the country to ensure an increased expedition of these reviews.
If the hon. member has particular accusations that he would like
me to review, I would be glad to do that.
* * *
[Translation]
AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker,
regarding the Auberge Grand-Mère, the Prime Minister claims that
he has not been a shareholder since 1993. We now know that he
was.
He also says “I was never personally involved in the
transaction”. We now know that this is not true.
Does this not justify a public inquiry to shed light on the
whole issue? Since this is the week for apologies, could the
Prime Minister not join the others and at least apologize to the
House, until we get a public inquiry?
1150
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
premise of the hon. member's question is wrong. The Prime
Minister was not a shareholder of the company after he became
Prime Minister.
As I just said, the hon. member is making insinuations that he
must retract.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is deluding himself or he
is being wilfully blind. We know the Prime Minister maintained
ownership and active control of the golf shares between 1996 and
1999, while actively lobbying the BDC to give a loan to the
adjoining hotel: help the hotel, help the golf course, help
himself.
The Prime Minister has misled the House. He has sullied his
reputation. He has breached the public trust. I call upon the
Deputy Prime Minister to set up an independent inquiry under the
Inquiries Act of Canada. Will he prepare to do that today?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. The Prime Minister did not
maintain control of the shares in the relevant period. He sold
them before he became Prime Minister. The ownership of the
shares was replaced by a debt which his lawyer worked in
consultation with the ethics counsellor to have paid.
My hon. friend is only sullying his own reputation by making
these unfounded allegations in his question. He started out with
a good reputation. After today it certainly is sullied.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism sat silent while she let the Prime Minister
defend her for maliciously slandering the good citizens of Prince
George.
It is unfortunate in the extreme that she could not have shown
such restraint the day before. On the contrary, she repeated her
allegations to the media but has yet to provide any proof to back
them up.
The truth is that the minister fabricated this slur. When will
the Prime Minister begin to hold his ministers accountable for
their repeated intolerance? Why has she not been stripped of her
cabinet post?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the hon. member should be stripped of his
critic's position after his unwarranted assertions in his
questions. The hon. secretary of state has recognized in her
place in the House that she made a mistake. She fulsomely
apologized.
I notice that the acting mayor of Prince George said in a news
interview:
Well I'm very disappointed with her performance yesterday, but
frankly Miss Fry has done some very good work on multicultural
issues and racism issues and I appreciate that work.
The acting mayor went on to say:
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the acting mayor also said that her
half-hearted apology did not go near far enough. No wonder the
Prime Minister refuses to hold the minister for multiculturalism
accountable for her repeated outrageous statements. He is
embroiled in his own scandal. He continues to set a poor example
for the entire government.
Since he will not impose any discipline on his caucus, will at
least his cabinet colleagues call upon the minister to resign?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the hon. member should resign if he keeps making
these unwarranted assertions and slurring a minister who has
devoted her life to fighting racism and for multiculturalism. She
spoke in a way that she agreed she should not have spoken. She
said she made a mistake. She apologized.
I think we should all get together and join with her in the
fight against discrimination and racism. This is what the
country needs, not the unwarranted slurs and assertions of my
hon. friend.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN JOB CREATION FUND
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
February 28 of this year, the Secretary of State responsible for
the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of
Quebec said in the House that the Canada jobs fund would be
transferred, in April, to Canada Economic Development.
But the Minister of Human Resources Development announced the
transfer of the fund to Canada Economic Development in June
2000, almost one year ago. In addition, we still do not know
how much was transferred.
Who is telling the truth? Where
are the funds right now, and what sort of amount are we talking
about?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed, it was in June of last
year that my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources
Development announced that the Canada jobs fund was wrapping up
and that the regional development agencies would essentially be
taking over.
Since then, Human Resources Development Canada has finished
analysing the final files remaining in the Canada jobs fund. We
are in the process of identifying the areas to receive these
additional funds, which will soon be given out.
What I can say is that this government has always tried very
hard to contribute to the regional development of the regions,
notwithstanding the position taken on several occasions by
numerous opposition members. We will continue to develop—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Jonquière.
1155
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one year
has gone by and nothing has been done. The criteria and the
funds were already clearly established at the time of the
transfer to Canada Economic Development.
Why did the secretary of state not make the funds available to
the regions immediately for the purpose of job creation?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the funds will soon be
transferred to the various agencies according to Treasury Board
guidelines. Everything is proceeding normally.
But, right now, I am wondering about the position of the
opposition member, who does not believe at all in regional
development. Recently, I travelled throughout Quebec to
announce funding of $103 million for the community futures
development corporations.
The member said that, in her region, this funding was pointless,
that it was too little, too late. Yet it is extremely beneficial
for her entire region in terms of job creation and economic
redeployment throughout her region. We on this side of the
House believe in regional development.
* * *
[English]
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
some large American forest companies own Canadian operations. The
American lumber coalition is asking these American companies to
petition the U.S. government to initiate countervail penalties
against Canadian producers.
Would the minister responsible tell these American corporations
through his U.S. counterparts that he will not stand for Canadian
companies being held hostage by their corporate brothers?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister for
International Trade has been quite clear that the goal of the
Canadian government, and indeed of everyone involved in the
lumber industry in all regions of Canada, is free trade in
softwood lumber.
Any action would have to be launched by the American government.
It has done this three times in the past to no avail. The
minister has been very clear on that. We will await the decision
of the American government.
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has been buffeted by requests from various
interest groups for special treatment on the softwood lumber
front. However there is broad consensus for a return to free
trade in softwood lumber.
Would the minister accept this consensus and agree not to
initiate any action which will short-circuit returning to free
trade after March 31?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with all due respect
to my colleague, he asked if the minister would accept the
consensus.
The minister has led the effort to reach the consensus. The
minister met this week with lumber interests from B.C., from the
maritimes and from Quebec. He has met repeatedly with his
counterparts at the provincial level. The Minister for
International Trade has been the leader in building the consensus
in Canada that we are insisting on free trade in softwood lumber.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Halifax
explosion remains one of the worst disasters in Canadian history
There remains a small group of elderly survivors that receive
pensions.
Could the minister advise the House what the government is doing
to ensure that these pensioners receive increases in their
pensions consistent with the cost of living?
Hon. Ronald Duhamel (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification)
(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the moment the issue was
brought to my attention, I asked my department to address it.
There is clearly a problem: the Halifax survivors, those who
receive pensions, are not keeping up with the cost of living. It
is addressing that at this very moment. There will be an
economic adjustment announced very shortly.
* * *
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is broad consensus for a return
to free trade in softwood lumber. Yesterday the minister said we
need a team Canada for softwood lumber. This pro-free trade team
needs a captain to unite and ignite the players. When will the
minister name this captain?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I like my
colleague's analogy. Quite clearly the captain who has been
playing very efficiently at this game is the minister himself.
As I said earlier, the minister has met repeatedly with
representatives of the provincial industries right across Canada.
An hon. member: Name one.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: One of my colleagues says name one. The
minister has personally met with trade representative Zoellick
and very clearly outlined the Canadian position.
The government has an excellent captain on this file. It is the
Minister for International Trade.
1200
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is not all about who will get
credit for doing what. We know the American lumber coalition
constantly makes negative statements about Canadian forest
practices and policy, but it does not represent all U.S.
interests.
For example, the president of Louisiana-Pacific has said that
the history and data suggest Canada would win a free trade
challenge on the merits. Canada also has major trade allies in
consumer, builder, lumber dealer and other groups in the States,
so why has the minister allowed our position to erode when there
is so much support for free trade?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is really
incredible for me to hear the member make that kind of assertion.
He knows full well that the minister has gone across the country
meeting with his provincial counterparts. He knows full well
that the minister this very week met with representatives of the
lumber industry from all regions of Canada.
That kind of assertion is not helpful. I think the member ought
to bear that in mind as we seek to continue to have a united
consensus in Canada.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During
question period, in a response to a question from the member for
Prince George—Peace River, the Deputy Prime Minister read a
quote from the acting mayor of Prince George, which he alleges is
an acceptance of the secretary of state's apology.
I wonder if it is in order to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to
table that document and the source of the quote that he provided
to the House today.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. Deputy Prime
Minister was quoting from one of his briefing notes.
If that was taken from a written document, such as a news report
or so on, I will attempt to retrieve it and table it in the House
as soon as it can be translated, if such is the case.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am asking for your
experience as Speaker. In the event that there was in fact no
media source to provide that quote for the Deputy Prime
Minister's briefing notes, would he be required to withdraw that
quote in the House, it being confirmed that it was in fact a
fabrication in his briefing notes as opposed to an authentic
quote?
The Deputy Speaker: Respectfully to the member for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley, this proposition is hypothetical. I am
not prepared to deal with that situation.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wonder if the government House leader would advise the House
whether the Prime Minister intends to come here and make a
statement explaining his actions in the Auberge Grand-Mère
affair.
The Deputy Speaker: I say to the very long serving member of
parliament for whom I have a great deal of respect, that is not a
point of order.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
* * *
1205
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
second report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs,
Northern Development and Natural Resources relating to Bill C-3,
an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and
Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act.
It was agreed on Thursday, March 22, to report it without
amendment.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the first
report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on Bill C-2, an act
to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment
Insurance (Fishing) Regulations, with one amendment.
I thank members of the committee from both sides of the House
for their hard work on this piece of legislation. We received
over 60 witnesses from all parts of the country. Members had to
work very long hours, often very late. I greatly appreciate
their work on the bill.
* * *
PETITIONS
POISON CONTROL
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from the
residents of the province of Saskatchewan who wish to draw the
attention of the House to the following.
Prior to 1992, concentrated liquid strychnine was available for
purchase by farmers for use in the control of the Richardson's
ground squirrel. However, since 1992 Health Canada has
restricted the sale of strychnine such that it is only available
in a premixed form, with the amount of strychnine limited to .4%.
The allowable limits for strychnine have greatly reduced the
effectiveness of the poison, resulting in populations of the
Richardson's ground squirrel increasing. A great deal of crop
and hay damage is caused by this ground squirrel. It is very
costly to farmers in lost productivity, equipment repairs and
injury to livestock.
The petitioners are asking parliament to amend the relevant
regulations so as to permit the sale of concentrated liquid
strychnine to registered farmers until such a time as an
effective alternative can be found.
IRAQ
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to table a petition today which deals with the
very serious issue of the devastating impact of the United
Nations sanctions on the people of Iraq.
The petitioners note that these sanctions have been condemned by
former UN humanitarian co-ordinator, Denis Halliday, as being
tantamount to genocide. They note that the House of Commons
standing committee on foreign affairs has unanimously called for
the lifting of these economic sanctions.
The petitioners call on the House to urgently pursue the rapid
lifting of the economic sanctions on Iraq. They include Linda
Morgan and the campaign to end sanctions against the people of
Iraq. They have done an outstanding job in bringing the matter
to the attention of the people of Canada.
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to present a petition signed by over 300 constituents from my
riding, who are asking the Canadian government to use the
employment insurance surplus for other purposes.
Therefore, the petitioners call for the creation of an
independent EI fund and ask that access to the benefits and the
benefit period be improved upon to ensure that a significant
majority of the unemployed in Canada get adequate EI benefits.
[English]
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition from citizens of the Peterborough
area who are keen to re-establish a VIA Rail link between our
community and Toronto. The petitioners point out there are great
environmental benefits to this link, reduced emissions being
important among them.
They also point out great cost savings between the rail service
and equivalent road services and the economic benefits that would
occur in Peterborough as a result of the employment mobility of
residents in our community and as a result of making the greater
Peterborough area more accessible as a tourist and educational
destination.
They call upon parliament to authorize the re-establishment of a
VIA Rail link between Toronto and Peterborough.
1210
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition here signed by hundreds of people in the Peterborough
area who suffer from end stage renal disease and by their
families and friends.
They note that those on kidney dialysis and those who have
successfully received transplants are grateful for those
treatments, but they point out that the bioartificial kidney,
into which research is going on at the present time, offers hope
for much greater mobility for those people.
They call upon parliament to work on and support bioartificial
kidney research, which would eventually eliminate the need for
dialysis or transplantation for those suffering from kidney
disease.
I have another petition that also involves kidney disease. The
petitioners point out that this is a huge and growing problem in
Canada. They call upon parliament to encourage the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research to explicitly include kidney
research as one of the institutes in its system, to be named the
institute of kidney and urinary tract diseases.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that
all the questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has an application for an
emergency debate and I take note that it is signed by
representatives and actually House officers of each of the
opposition parties, so I sense there is a tremendous amount of
interest and seriousness to this question. I will begin with the
hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I have given notice
to your office of our intention. I speak of our intention
collectively because, as you have noted, this letter to you is
signed by myself as a representative of the Progressive
Conservative Party and by the chief opposition whip, the deputy
leader in the House for the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP House
leader.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that there is a very real and
pressing need to have an emergency debate based on information
that now is in the public realm. This emergency debate would
concern the apparent failure of the Prime Minister to inform the
House of Commons fully concerning his relationship to loans given
to the Auberge Grand-Mère hotel. This information and this issue
have paralyzed the House and shaken the confidence of Canadians
in their government.
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to give the opportunity for all members
of the House, including the Prime Minister himself, to come
forward to take part in a full and open debate so that there
would be commentary and confidence restored to government in this
country.
I would urge you to accept this application for an emergency
debate. There is tremendous support for this application from
members on the opposition side, and I suspect that there may be
members on the government side who would support this
application. I respectfully submit to the Chair that it is very
timely in its nature and, if necessary, we would be prepared to
debate this matter immediately.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will just stand for a couple of
minutes and support my colleague from the Conservative Party in
this request of all parties on this side for an emergency debate
on this issue.
It is not too often I find myself in agreement with the Deputy
Prime Minister, but he is talking about getting back to the
business of this country and what is good for Canadians. I think
there is one way to do that, and that is a debate in the House
today to get the government to realize the importance of having
an independent inquiry into this issue.
We have the case where I, as a member of parliament, am phoned
by a long time friend of the Prime Minister. It has never
happened to me before. She was lobbying on one side of this
issue to ask me to get my leader to pull off the issue. Today
she is saying “I feel I have been made a fool of and I am afraid
I am going to fired from my job for making this public”.
This is an emergency. It is time. I know that I myself and the
other members of the House would sit here all of tonight and into
tomorrow if we have to, because this is important business for
the country. We have to get it over with and we have to impress
that on the members from the government side. It is time to
debate the issue fully in the House and have an independent
inquiry.
I know how difficult this is. I have been a Speaker myself and
have listened to many petitions for emergency debates. However,
seldom did I see one where all the opposition parties were
agreeing on the same issue no matter what their political
backgrounds were.
However, I think there is a desire on the part of all Canadians
that we in this House get down to this issue and get it over
with.
1215
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois supports the Progressive Conservative Party and the
Canadian Alliance on the importance of having an emergency
debate.
I remind hon. members that, by virtue of Standing Order 52(6)a),
an emergency debate must meet the following conditions, one in
particular which I will quote:
I believe that today, in light of what we have learned—and the
demonstration we have had for the past few months, not to say
the past two years—there are indeed grounds for an emergency
debate so that the Prime Minister may explain himself.
I remind hon. members that, to summarize the situation, the
Prime Minister has misled the House. He has misled the public,
and that is serious. He has taken refuge behind an ethics
counsellor who, by his own admission, does not even have the
ability to exonerate him.
It is clear that there is a perceived conflict of interest,
blindingly clear. The Prime Minister must explain himself
before the House, and this serious matter, which casts doubt on
the very capacity of the Prime Minister to govern this country,
must be debated and debated now.
For your information, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote briefly
from the Marleau and Montpetit, page 589, regarding precedent in
cases like this:
However, in one exceptional circumstance, an application was
approved for an emergency debate on “the sudden and unexpected
revelation of events which [had] taken place in the past, in
that they might precipitate a course of conduct which, if
allowed to continue unchecked, would certainly classify itself
as an emergency and a matter of urgent consideration.”
Further on a specific case is cited:
This refers to revelations made by the Solicitor General in the
House on October 28, 1977, concerning illegal actions committed
by the national security forces of the RCMP in 1973. This
matter was referred to the McDonald Royal Commission and to the
Attorney General of Quebec.
Therefore, I am calling for support in this request
so there will indeed be an emergency debate, given the urgency
of the situation.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise in support of the request for an emergency debate with
respect to what we have learned further today with respect to the
whole controversy over the Prime Minister's relationship with the
Grand-Mère Inn and the Grand-Mère golf course.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that what constitutes an argument
for an emergency debate is whether or not an issue is of such
importance, and whether or not the country and parliament is
seized of it in such a way, that unless it is dealt with we
cannot move on. It is something that is so much on the minds of
all members of parliament that unless we deal with it we cannot
move on and deal with all the other issues that we have before
us.
By the government's own admission, not just an opposition claim,
we are now at that state of affairs that unless we have a proper
clearing of the air with respect to this issue, unless we can
hear in detail and at some length from the Prime Minister or from
others who want to make his case and from others who have other
claims to make, the House is basically in a state of paralysis.
It is not something that I welcome, and I think the behaviour of
my party over the last several weeks would justify me in saying
so. We would like to deal with other things, but the Prime
Minister, by not being willing to produce documents and by not
being willing to tell the whole story, has created a situation in
which we now plead, first of all, with the Prime Minister, but in
this context, with you, Mr. Speaker, to create a situation in
which this matter can be dealt with. Through your decision, Mr.
Speaker, you can do what the government appears unwilling to do.
It is not that we are asking you to do the government's work
here, because that would be unfair and unjustified, and you would
be right to refuse it. We are asking you to do something for
parliament and the country, to create an opportunity in which we
no longer have to spend question period after question period
trying to get this whole story out, but rather let us have a
special emergency debate, let us have everything on the table and
hopefully get this behind us.
1220
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would just quickly add that I agree
with my colleagues in the House. I would point out to the Chair
that this matter has been a question in the House for over two
years now and it is time to clear the air.
It is very serious when the head of state is under this kind of
cloud, rightly or wrongly. I believe we need an objective and
trusted person from outside to investigate this. If the House
itself were to deal with this as a serious matter before our
institutions and our people, that would be the responsible and
proper thing to do.
Two years is long enough. We need to get to the bottom of this
and clear it up.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot
believe what I am hearing today. The opposition is creating an
issue that, frankly, does not exist.
It has had an opportunity to debate this issue for over two
years now in question period. It has had the opportunity to
debate this issue during an election campaign. It has had an
opportunity to debate this issue on the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation station, as well as in the media. It has been
holding news conferences day in and day out. It has had ample
opportunity to bring the issue to the attention of the Canadian
public. It has had the chance every day between 2 o'clock and 3
o'clock to debate this issue.
The Deputy Speaker: I realize it was rather
unconventional for me to recognize a member from the government
side when the request for emergency debate came from the
opposition parties, and the House takes this matter very
seriously, but clearly the member was engaging in debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today to take part in the request for an emergency
debate.
For two years, two years, two years—I repeat it three times—we
have been wasting our time in the House of Commons on problems
created by the Prime Minister.
Once and for all, this must be cleared up so that we
parliamentarians may come here and do our real work. As the
Deputy Prime Minister said, we should be here to do the work of
the opposition and do specific things for the benefit of our
country.
That is why I agree we should have an emergency debate in order
to have done with it once and for all.
If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, let him table the
documents in the House and let the thing rest.
The Deputy Speaker: I hope I have expressed clearly and
precisely the Chair's view of the request by the opposition
parties for an emergency debate.
I have listened to arguments from the members of each party and,
if someone has something new to add, I am prepared to listen
briefly. However, with due respect for each intervention, I
would ask for my colleague's co-operation in not simply repeating
the arguments made to the Chair previously.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there
is something a little different from what has already been said
that I would like you to consider.
On Wednesday we had a debate on reforming the standing orders
of the House. I believe it is very important to know that for
the course of events we cannot as members have confidence in
this institution if the Prime Minister himself is not prepared
to answer a number of questions on matters relating to
integrity.
We assume he acted in good faith. We would like nothing better
than to believe that, but we will not have confidence in our
role as members if the Prime Minister does not make
himself available to answer our questions.
The Deputy Speaker: With all due respect, I am asking for new
subject matter. I do think that many points have been raised
very responsibly.
1225
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your patience with us
here. I would like to give a brief example of why this needs to
be done now.
I am reflecting what my constituents are telling me. There is
an emergency in agriculture. They want us to get on to that in
this House. They see that we tend to be fiddling while Rome
burns. The agriculture debate needs to take place and yet—
The Deputy Speaker: I do not want to diminish the
seriousness of the request made by colleagues on this matter. I
plead respectfully, if there is not something new that has not been
presented outside the themes that I have already heard, I will
tend to be less generous.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think that you
will view what I am about to say as sufficiently important to be
taken into consideration in your ruling.
I am the member for Champlain, which is the riding next to
Saint-Maurice. This is our region. The allegations which were
made this morning, the new information we have received, comes
from our riding and the neighbouring riding, from the region.
This business is beginning to weigh heavily on us, even
economically. The member for Saint-Maurice is not—
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am now ready to make a
ruling. I would first like to thank all those who took part in
the debate on this request.
[English]
I obviously tried to signal what I consider to be the gravity of
the question when I entered into the subject matter acknowledging
that the request for emergency debate consideration was under the
signature of representatives of each of the opposition parties
and, in some cases, not to diminish others, but certainly the
House leaders.
This is an ongoing issue and, respectfully, I do not believe
that the request meets the requirements of the standing orders at
this time.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-4, an act to establish
a foundation to fund sustainable development technology, as
reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions
in group no.1.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, prior to question period, I was getting excited about the
perhaps waste of money that the government is proposing in
setting up a whole new bureaucracy to administer money or hand
out money that could easily be done through some other arm of the
government.
I would give an example to the minister if he would take the time to
attend some of the bacon and egghead breakfasts which are put on
by the Canada Council just about every month in this place. If
he had been in attendance at the one that was held last week, he
could have a met a professor from the University of Victoria who
is involved in environmental studies and is already studying the
environment and ways to help reduce pollution.
It is totally unnecessary to set up a whole new organization to
deal with this issue of environmental studies and technologies.
1230
It is completely ridiculous and it is an excuse to spend more
money, make more patronage appointments and make the government
even bigger. It is, because there is a bit of a surplus of
taxpayer money, an excuse to spend. It is wrong to keep doing
that when it is other people's money. I gave some examples—
Hon. Ralph Goodale: But he says he supports it in
principle.
Mr. Ted White: Madam Speaker, the minister interrupts to
say that the critic supports the bill. We support the idea that
there needs to be technology development in conjunction with
cleaning the environment. Of course we support that aim, but the
point I am making is that there are divisions within the
government which can already do that without setting up another
bureaucracy.
I worry about accountability. The problem with setting up yet
another bureaucracy is that there is hardly any accountability
for the ones that are there. I gave some examples from the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council before question
period began. There are plenty of examples. There is the
$38,600 for history and aesthetics of television medical dramas
in North America. That is enough to make anyone sick.
The problem with the government is that there simply is no
accountability. Committees have difficulty getting information
about the way the government spends money. The Auditor General
of Canada has accused the government of moving money around in
the books in a way that makes it difficult to determine exactly
what is going on.
The project that is taking place under the bill is just another
excuse to expand the government. It should not be necessary. It
should not be done when we can handle the project easily within
other arms of government.
I realize the government is past the point of no return and will
probably not withdraw the bill. In fact, I heard the minister
say yes. The problem with this place is it would not matter if
300 MPs said it could be done more easily or more efficiently in
some other arm of government. Because he is in charge, he will
ram it through anyway and to Hades with the fact that it will
cost taxpayers more money.
I will close by saying that since we are debating motions for
amendments to the bill, I disagree with the motion put forward by
the Bloc because it would simply add to the bureaucracy by
involving the provincial governments.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam
Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise in the House today to
speak to Bill C-4. I support the remarks made by my colleague,
the member for Sherbrooke, who is a member of the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and
Natural Resources, and who reported what he heard to us. We
could almost say that he reported what he did not hear since,
except for the minister and departmental officials, there were
no other witnesses.
The Minister of Natural Resources told us before oral question
period that there would be a consultation process. I would
like to know if the bill is so perfect why there is a
need for further consultation once it is passed.
It does not make any sense. Usually, when the government wants
to introduce a bill, there is a consultation process which
often takes place at the committee stage.
There is something else, something important. If the government
really thought this bill was important, we know it would have
passed it a long time ago. We also know that this bill replaces
a bill—I think it was Bill C-46—that was introduced in the
previous parliament.
I deplore the fact that once again the government is bringing
back a bill that died on the order paper. Why did we have an
election last fall? I know what it did to me. I was about to
introduce a private member's bill that could have been passed
and implemented before the election, but the Prime Minister
decided to call an election before I had a chance to do that.
Now this bill is coming back to us as Bill C-4 to do what? To
establish a new foundation. We could say yet another one.
1235
Each time we in the Bloc Quebecois have questioned the
relevancy of a new foundation. Generally speaking why is a new
foundation needed? I took part in the debate on the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency, another government agency.
Let us remind members about the millennium scholarships
foundation. It was used by the federal government to interfere
in provincial jurisdictions and hand out scholarships, and yet
education is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Now we have a new foundation to fund sustainable development and
studies on new technologies.
It is hard to be against a definition of sustainable development
like the one we have in this bill, because it states the
obvious.
The bill reads:
I am told that the budget of the foundation will be about $110
million. That is not very much for the kind of work it will have
to do, which is almost the equivalent of the program of the
whole government.
Going through a foundation is a different approach than the one
the government normally uses, either through its departments or
through agencies over which there is some control by cabinet,
and therefore parliament, because we can ask the ministers
questions in the House every day, ask questions and try to get
answers to understand the way things are done, why money was
spent, and so on.
When the government tries to justify the creation of a new
foundation, it tells us “It is important for this to be done by
an organization operating at arm's length from the government”.
At first glance, this looks interesting, particularly since we
wonder sometimes, every day in fact, how certain departments
operate.
It would be great if everything were at arm's length, but we
need only look at the nomination process. The chair is appointed
by the governor in council, or the cabinet.
Six members out of 15 are appointed by the cabinet and the
others are chosen by the ones appointed by the cabinet. That is
not very reassuring. Then the members choose the officials who
will be in charge of operations. All this is done in a very
independent fashion, far from the usual rules for hiring public
servants.
Nobody is against sustainable development. Like all the other
parties the Bloc Quebecois supports sustainable development.
The provinces also support sustainable development. Quebec has
created a foundation, a special fund to finance projects on new
technologies that do not impact on the environment.
Everything should be clear and all levels of government should
agree.
According to information I got, the consultations dealt with
sustainable development and the objects and purposes, but not
with ways of proceeding, not with the structure. This is a new
structure will operate at arm's length from the government
but be controlled by the government, the cabinet, not by the
department. We know who is the boss in the cabinet right
now; it is the Prime Minister.
It is somewhat like the ethics counsellor appointed by the Prime
Minister and responsible for watching over him. Here we have a
process that turns itself around and could be fairly dangerous,
even though it has noble objects.
1240
Quebec has had for several years a foundation dealing with
the same kind of projects. It would be normal that the federal
foundation operate in co-operation with the provinces.
This is not so sure, since admissibility criteria are not
defined in the bill or their definition is so vague and so
unclear that anything or nothing can be done at the same time,
notably things that are already being done by provinces.
Those are the main reasons why I feel we cannot vote for this
bill.
The bill itself, even taking into account the motions put
forward, raises so many questions that we cannot vote for it
because the bill is really vague and unclear. On the contrary,
legislation should be clear, applicable and applied.
[English]
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to have an opportunity today to speak on the bill.
However I am also disappointed because of everything that has
happened in the House over the last number of weeks, and
particularly today.
It is, without question, important that we invest in sustainable
development projects. I do not think there is any argument about
that. I have listened to numerous members speak today, and there
is no argument that we need to invest in sustainability. What
there is, though, is a failure to have any faith in the
government, the Prime Minister or any process that takes away the
right of parliament to make decisions and puts that right in the
hands of what is often referred to as an arm's length body.
Today I have come to realize that in Canada there are probably
as many people who believe Elvis is still living as there are who
have faith in the Prime Minister and the government. I say that
in all seriousness. How can we have faith in the system anymore
when we cannot clear the air on something as important as our
Prime Minister being honest with us?
At a time when we should be investing in sustainable
development, we must wonder why they are setting up this body at
arm's length. Nobody believes it is arm's length anymore. For
all government appointments on every type of foundation or board
or whatever it sets up, there is always a rubber arm reaching in
from the Liberal Party or the Prime Minister's Office with
control over it. No one has faith any more.
I appeared the other night on a CPAC show and I talked about how
we can encourage more young people to become involved in the
political process. I made a comment that people must have faith
in the system and believe the system works before they can become
part of it and see positive change.
Although young people and many other people are not voting, they
are involved in a political process. However it is a protest
process. They are involved in things outside the realm of
government. They no longer have faith in the government to
follow through with important changes that must happen in our
society.
As someone who has had faith in this democracy for a number of
years, I have lost a lot of that faith since coming to
parliament. I said the other night I was optimistic that we
would see positive change. Parliament met and had discussions on
democratic reform.
It now seems it was all just a wash and was not worth anything.
Our Prime Minister is involved in a situation that has tainted
the whole process, and he does not come clean.
That is all that anybody is asking. If the proof is there it
should be put on the table so that we can get on with the
business of the country.
1245
We are starting to be seen like the affairs in the states where
a few times the presidents got themselves involved in some nasty
little to-do. Thank heavens it is not quite that bad, but we are
getting there. We are spending our time questioning the
credibility of our government, and in particular our Prime
Minister. It is so disappointing.
We cannot help but wonder why we do not put the money to operate
the board into the environment department. Why do we have to
set up another arm's length board, pay a board of directors of
appointed people once again, giving the implication that it is
only being set up there to have more money funnelled through
Liberal patronage?
We will have people involved in the sustainability industry,
business and some NGOs. However, as far as individual Canadians
who have an interest or the representatives of those Canadians in
parliament having any say over what will happen, it is not there.
We were recently talking about the Canadian Foundation for
Innovation. That is an excellent program. Even with that there
is a question on how the money would be distributed to different
areas throughout the country. Parliament does not have any way
of saying that the way it is broken down has to be changed, so we
have to fight that out now.
There is no way that my party and I can support any foundation
or board that will be at arm's length from parliament because
that is the bottom line here. It is not arm's length from the
government because its rubber arm just reaches in, gives a little
tug and says that this is what we will do. Nobody in Canada
believes any differently. I do not believe for a second that the
Liberals believe any differently any more. Even they cannot
ignore it any longer.
We have reached the point of no return. If we do not clear the
air, we will be unable to deal with any issues and we will be
doing nothing for the democratic process in Canada.
The intentions are very good, as are the intentions of
parliamentarians. However it will not work if we are operating
under the type of rules the government is willing to accept as a
credible process. It is disappointing that we cannot support the
sustainable development fund based on the fact that we can no
longer count on the government to do what is right for Canada and
what is right for our country in general.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak at
report stage to Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to
fund sustainable development technology.
In other words, the federal government wants to get involved in
one area so that the concept of sustainable development can be
applied in several areas of our society and so that we can
gradually eliminate any development that does not take
environmental issues into account.
We all agree with this objective.
I think we all want any future development to be sustainable and
to comply with sustainability requirements.
However this bill needs to be strengthened and expanded. It
requires some additional elements.
The first group of amendments deals exactly with that. These
amendments are designed to strengthen the rules for choosing the
evaluation mechanisms and the criteria for the projects funded
by the Canada foundation for sustainable development technology.
The proposed structure of the foundation leaves ample room for
laxity. Members of the board of directors will be appointed in
part by the government and those chosen by the government will
then appoint the others.
With such a structure, we could very well see projects being
funded that do not necessarily meet the objectives of the
foundation but rather those of the government's friends. This
needs to be clarified.
1250
Let us not forget that the auditor general has denounced the
government's custom of creating more and more foundations that
are not really accountable to the House since the cabinet
ministers in charge of them do not in effect control their
activities nor do they have criteria to ensure that projects
were accepted correctly.
In the present case we would have expected firmer assurances
from the government that the money would be spent appropriately.
In fact, that is the main problem with this bill.
This bill does not take into account the fact that a fund has
already been created in Quebec for the same purpose and that it
would have been much simpler to give the money to Quebec in
order to increase the effectiveness of the Fonds québécois pour
le développement durable.
It is quite surprising to note that the bill
defines the concept of sustainable development but does not
quite define the objectives of the approved projects.
I even predict that one, two or three years down the road
projects will be denounced in the House as being absurd because
they would not correspond to the objectives of a foundation such
as the one considered for the sustainable development
technology.
I am therefore inviting the government to pay attention, to
listen, to study and to analyze the amendments proposed in this
first grouping.
They will provide us with precise criteria for the awarding of
contracts. We will have mechanisms for measuring completed
projects to see whether their bottom line has changed society,
ensured that the development was indeed sustainable, and saved
us from situations such as we have seen in the past, for example
the catastrophic groundfish strategy. That is one development
in which long term sustainable development was not taken into
account.
Then there are far more subtle points relating to the whole
greenhouse gas issue.
The foundation also needs to be looked at in terms of its
objectives. Will it give an equal opportunity to provinces that
already have measures and programs in place to deal with the
greenhouse gas issue?
I know that Quebec has already done its part, while other
provinces have not. There is often a connection with their
energy production. They might turn to this foundation for more
funds. This does not mean, however, that people in all parts of
Canada ought not to be entitled to their share of the funds set
aside. I feel that the bill as it stands is too vague, too
imprecise on these points.
We do not have sufficient guarantees that the effectiveness of
the program will be assessed.
That is why we want the criteria to be tightened up so as to
ensure that by the time third reading is reached the bill will
have integrated the amendments required to give it some teeth.
It will then be possible, if ever the foundation made a poor
choice of projects, for funding to be taken back and a warning
issued to project managers to change their way of doing things
and to make sure the money goes to the right places.
As for the appointment process, we really have no guarantee that
three, five or ten years down the road the criteria will have
been applied properly as far as sustainable development is
concerned.
In short, Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to fund
sustainable development technology, is a good and desirable
idea. However, it does not suit the Canadian situation because
it does not respect provincial jurisdictions. It does not
reflect the fact that Quebec is ahead because it already has its
Fonds pour le développement durable.
The bill must be amended and refined to include many more of the
elements that would make it an effective tool to stimulate
initiatives in sustainable development so that, 10 years from
now, we can say that Canada has in fact made the shift to
sustainable development and that the foundation responsible for
this has reached its objectives by respecting the specific
characteristics of each region of Canada.
These things are missing from the bill.
This is why we find the bill unacceptable in its present form.
We ask the government to support the first series of amendments
we proposed. Others will follow.
1255
We hope that the government will accept our suggestions to avoid
having to come back to the House in one, two or three years to
completely rework the legislation or, worse, being faced with
scandals or outrageous situations.
[English]
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that the Alliance will not
be supporting Motions Nos. 1 and 6 put forward by the Bloc
Quebecois for the reasons outlined by my colleagues.
It is worth repeating some of the difficulties that Motion No. 6
would bring to the legislation. It would bring provincial
ministers of the environment into all the discussions regarding
the criteria of eligibility and, in doing so, would introduce
some different criteria of acceptance into every province. The
bill needs uniformity and this would be a hindrance to that
particular aspect of this important legislation.
If we were to pass Motion No. 6, or Motion No. 1 which is
similar, I think it would create more problems than the bill
attempts to solve. For that reason, we will not be supporting
Motions Nos. 1 and 6.
Motion No. 10, brought forward by my colleagues from the
Conservative Party, is an attempt to curtail some of the
vagueness of the bill by introducing some eligibility criteria.
We are supportive of that idea.
The purpose of the bill has been laid out and we are supportive
of the intent of the bill. We have some questions and ideas for
improvement in terms of how to implement the bill. We have some
issues with some aspects of the bill that I believe are worth
noting.
I want to state that the Alliance is committed to protecting and
preserving our natural environment and endangered species. That
is very clear within our policy and perspective. We want to work
together with members from all sides of the House and the
government. We commend them for moving forward on good
initiatives that have to do with protecting our environment and
enhancing sustainable development. Those are good, broad and
general notions to pursue which we support.
My colleague from North Vancouver pointed out some rather
glaring difficulties with the whole appointment process in terms
of governor in council appointments, which is an aspect of this
bill. He highlighted, from his own experience, some wasteful
instances of taxpayer dollars being spent in ways that perhaps
could have been allocated to priority areas, such as health care,
education, reducing taxes and those kinds of very important
priorities.
I want to talk a little bit about the appointment process that
would be created by the bill. I believe the chairperson along
with a minority number of directors and members are appointed by
the governor in council, who would then appoint the remaining
members to complete the 15 person board of directors. We do have
some concerns that the foundation could become a possible
patronage arm of the government.
We know that the government must appoint many people in many
different arms of the government, related agencies and boards. We
know that is a reality, but we would like to see a process that
would have the most competent and trained individuals for
positions like that.
We have seen examples in other areas, not particularly this one
area that has been brought forward, where appointments have been
somewhat questionable. We always raise the concern when the
issue is brought up within any legislation that there needs to be
a more transparent and accountable process in place for
appointing individuals to government boards or to arms of the
government.
One example, of which I am very well aware and which happened
not too long ago, was the appointment of a former colleague of
ours here in the House, Mr. Sekora, who was representing
Coquitlam.
1300
He was appointed as a citizenship judge. He made some rather
outlandish remarks in the House which are documented in
Hansard. We are all well aware of them. It showed
insensitivity on the government's part to appoint an individual
who demonstrated a lack of sensitivity on issues to do with
immigration.
Even after the election he made comments that were rather
derogatory to immigrants in his own community. He was then
appointed a citizenship judge. His record seems quite contrary
to the kind of individual one would appoint to a responsible
position.
The actions and past experience of that individual give us
reason for concern. We also see, through another piece of
legislation, governor in council appointments where individuals
appointed to boards are perhaps not the best selection in some
cases. That raises concerns for us, and obviously we have the
same concern with this bill. We encourage the government to, and
hope it will, select individuals who are the best for the job in
this area.
An hon. member: We will.
Mr. Grant McNally: I am glad to hear the minister say he
will. He is making the commitment in the House today to appoint
qualified individuals to the board. I thank him for that. We
hope that perhaps he can talk to the rest of his cabinet
colleagues and impress upon them the importance of doing so
within their areas and departments.
I will talk a bit about an environmental issue in my own
community. There are several. One has to do with protecting a
very sensitive area known as the Cod Island wetlands. It is in
the Lower Fraser Valley in the area of Pitt Meadows and Pitt
Poulder. There are individuals who are working hard to find a
community solution to the situation. They are trying to bring
people together to protect one of the most sensitive wetlands,
and perhaps the only remaining sensitive wetland in the lower
mainland in British Columbia, from being developed.
There is the potential for that. An individual who owns the
land wants to turn it into cranberry bogs. It is his land and he
has the right to do so. However there is also concern that it be
preserved, and there are individual working on that. I encourage
the government to get involved as well, and to look at how it
might help out. I have written letters to the Minister of the
Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on the issue
and I will continue to encourage them to find community based
solutions to protect that very sensitive area.
The Alliance is concerned about the environment. We are in many
regards the party that wants to protect the environment. Members
from other parties want to protect it as well, and we commend
them for their efforts. We need to work together to find
commonalities wherever we can in regard to the bill. There is
agreement on some motions. We do not particularly support
Motions Nos. 1 and 6, as I outlined. However we do support
Motion No. 10. We will soon be debating other parts of the bill
as well.
It is an important issue to talk about in the House. Many have
said it will be the most important issue within the next
generation. We need to protect our environment. It will affect
the future health and well-being of all citizens no matter which
area, province or community they come from. We must be
concerned. We must turn our concern into workable action so that
we do the right thing together in a way that is not partisan.
1305
We will have disagreements on how to implement aspects of
legislation. However we must work together on things we agree on
and have a clear debate about the things we disagree on. We must
do this in an open fashion, as has been done in the House today,
and allow individuals to bring forward ideas and suggestions for
amending legislation.
Our critic has been very involved for a long time with this
issue and has ideas and suggestions on how to improve the bill. I
am sure he has brought up his ideas at committee, and he will be
bringing them up in the House. We need to work together to make
this a workable piece of legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
always a bit flattered when you refer to me from the Speaker's
chair as a membre, in French. I also know that the word refers
to very different realities in French and in English. However,
you can always count on me to stimulate the discussion, as far
as I am allowed to do in this House.
I feel a bit spoiled to be allowed to speak on this Friday, not
only because the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport is
listening to me but also because I am doing so under the
watchful eye of the member for Sherbrooke, who has done an
excellent job.
I am sure that all my colleagues join me in paying tribute to
him for the tremendous job he did in the committee to convey the
concerns of the Bloc Quebecois.
I am all the more confident because our former critic, the
member for Jonquière, is close by and she is very
knowledgeable about this issue.
I would like to remind the minister that if everybody in this
House knows very well that there is a pink side to me, they
should also know that there is a green side to me and that the
Bloc Quebecois firmly believes in the need for governments to
invest in sustainable development.
This is not an easy issue, because I remember that at the
beginning of the 1990s, when the secretary of State for Amateur
Sport had not yet been elected to this House but was working
very hard to get here, we discussed the main recommendations
which were adopted by multilateral forums. Of course, the
discussion dealt with the damage to be expected from climate
change.
This is why we do not question the necessity for governments,
the federal government as well as provincial governments, to
invest in this area. However we have a few questions about the
way the government intends to proceed.
At first glance this bill appears to be a positive initiative,
at least judging by its title, an act to establish a foundation
to fund sustainable development technology. One would tend to
see this as a rather positive initiative.
However, if one takes a closer look at the bill, one finds that
it raises some concerns.
First, we should not forget that Canada has a national issue
table made up of various organizations dealing with environment
issues. These organizations, which are monitoring the issue of
the environment with a truly admirable attentiveness, have said
that a $5 million outlay is very little. In fact, in view of the
studies and field projects required to yield real results in our
communities, some $1.2 billion should be invested in the
foundation. At the very least the foundation needs $500
million for demonstration projects alone.
When we read the last budget speech announcing the
establishment of that foundation, we realize that the government
has been rather parsimonious. For a government which claimed the
environment as one of its priorities, we cannot say that the
finance minister has really loosened the purse strings.
I am rather surprised and I sympathize with this natural
resources minister who has been somewhat ostracized when it
comes to budget matters. I know he would have loved to be able
to make an announcement in this House about a $500 million
investment. Unfortunately he will have to make do with a meagre
$100 million in the next few years.
As for the second concern, we know how foundations can be a
touchy subject.
1310
The foundation in question will be composed of 14 members, seven
of whom will be appointed directly by the government. Those
members shall appoint the other seven members—eight with the
chairperson—of the foundation. Co-optation is clearly in evidence
here, but this process raises a number of concerns.
Why was it not possible, for example, for provinces to submit
lists directly? If this government had been really serious about
co-operative federalism, the submission of lists directly by the
various environment departments or ministries—all provinces and
territories have one—could have been allowed.
It is a fairly common practice. I remember voicing the same
criticism when the bill creating the National Tourism Commission
was before the House. It is always the same. For the sake of
transparency, the provinces should be involved in the
appointment process.
I remind the House that the hard working member for Sherbrooke,
who substantially increased his majority in the last general
election, tabled an amendment essentially requesting that the
various provincial environment ministers be involved in the
process. I hope the government will seize the opportunity to set
this straight, and to do for the environment what it did not do
for the National Tourism Commission.
This is one of our concerns. We hope the government will be
favourable to the Bloc's amendments.
I nearly made a terrible blunder. I want to take this
opportunity to wish all the best to my friend André Boisclair,
the new minister of the environment as a result of the recent
cabinet shuffle in Quebec City. He is one of the most talented
members of the government. He is a rising star in Quebec
politics. To the member for Gouin, with whom you might even have
shared a common electorate, Madam Speaker, and who is well known
for his talents, talents the Secretary of State for Amateur
Sport might envy a little bit, I wish all the best.
We know how much our fellow citizens value the environment.
Understandably so as the future of our society depends on the
environment.
There are the issues of recycling, sustainable development,
climatic change, which must all be looked at.
I would like to digress a little to say that I hope the
Secretary of State for Amateur Sport has a recycling box in
front of his home. I know this program is available in all
Montreal neighbourhoods. We know how important green
neighbourhoods are. I would not understand if the Secretary of
State for Amateur Sport would not be setting an example.
This leads me to talk about the Quebec foundation which has been
in existence for a number of years. I see the Minister of
Natural Resources nodding. He will agree with me that this
foundation has a $45 million endowment. The Quebec government
maintains environmental know-how.
Let me remind the House that the Fonds d'action québécois pour
le développement durable distributes its budget allowance
between four major components, four major priorities. I would
like the Minister of Natural Resources to carefully take note of
these components. He will discover that it would be quite
possible for him to transfer to this foundation the portion that
should be allocated to Quebec. He could send it directly, move
it through the Fondation québécoise pour le développement
durable.
The first component deals with the integration and promotion of
sustainable development, for which the Quebec government has set
aside $19 million.
The second component is related to the carrying out of
ecological infrastructures and the enhancement of biodiversity,
for which the Quebec government has set aside $15 million.
1315
The third component is most important in my opinion, but I know
there are mixed views on this. For me it is of the utmost
importance. It is the issue of experimenting with
environmentally sensitive technologies.
Incidentally, if we want new ways of doing things, if we want
Quebecers and Canadians to change the way they consume
resources, if we really want to establish new practices which
have no detrimental effect on natural resources, then obviously
we have to experiment with new technologies.
To do so, funding must be available to community agencies that
will conduct new experiments, on environmentally related
technologies for example, at a cost of $7 million.
I see that my time is nearly up, so I will conclude by saying
that although our party is pro-environment we believe that too
many jurisdictions are involved. I ask the Minister of the
Environment to support the amendments introduced by the member
for Sherbrooke, for the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Madam Speaker, the subject
being debated today involves two great passions I have had
since I was very young and since I entered politics specifically.
We are talking about the environment. There is no doubt that
the environment means our future. There is no doubt that when
we speak of the environment it is hard to oppose the bill,
because it would appear to be opposing environmental protection
when in my opinion we do not protect it enough.
This bill is a case in point on the subject of democracy. I want
to take what my colleague, the member for Churchill, said a
little further. She said, “When I arrived in parliament, I had
illusions. I thought democracy reigned supreme in parliament.
The further I go, the more I realize democracy is under threat”.
My mentor in reflection in the area of democracy or politics is
René Lévesque. I had the opportunity to work with this great
democrat, now recognized by one and all. Mr. Lévesque said “If
there is one political value worth sacrificing one's life for,
it is the value of democracy”.
When I see how the government is wearing democracy away and not
using democracy—because democracy, as we know, is perhaps one of
the sole values that may be worn away and is lost when not
used—each time it is threatened, I see René Lévesque and I feel I
must react.
This government's ever more closed administration is
inexplicable and unforgivable. We can see what it is doing in
its closed circuit as well. The only way it can enter an area
of Quebec's jurisdiction is by creating foundations.
When it wants to duplicate what is being done in Quebec, it just
establishes a foundation and goes ahead. If somebody objects,
its answer is that it is just a foundation. However who is
responsible for this foundation? To a large extent the Prime
Minister is. A foundation obeys the Prime Minister and reports
to him. It also gets its mandate from the Prime Minister, but
the money still comes from the taxpayers. I take strong
exception to this.
With respect to the environment, for example, my colleague has
just explained that the Quebec government is putting in a big
effort and is doing a great job.
1320
The day before yesterday in committee I asked the agriculture
minister a question about what Quebec is trying to do to make
agriculture and the environment more compatible, to improve
agriculture so that agriculture and the environment can go hand
in hand. The agriculture minister congratulated the Quebec
government on its efforts concerning the environment.
If this democratic parliament has more money to spend on the
environment, it should go through the normal channels and spend
it through the Quebec government. It is already there and it is
doing a good job on the environment.
I cannot even support the principle underlying this bill
because it is not democratic. The purpose of foundations should
not be to divert money from provinces and to duplicate
provincial programs.
Today is a very sad day for me and for my whole environment. I
am the member for Champlain. My riding is located next to the
riding of Saint-Maurice. The member for Saint-Maurice, my
colleague in parliament, is the Prime Minister. Members
know that we have been talking for months now about what
occurred in the Prime Minister's riding and in the riding of
Champlain.
The Prime Minister argues that nothing wrong happened, but he
should turn his words into action and prove that nothing wrong
occurred.
I am shocked to see that my neighbour, the member for
Saint-Maurice, is not even trying to quash the rumours when he
could easily shed some light on this issue simply by tabling
some documents. This is hurting the riding of Saint-Maurice, the
riding of Champlain, the whole region and our democracy.
I think we should act quickly. Members know that people living
in various ridings do talk to each other. People come to see me
in my riding office and tell me: “Mr. Gagnon, when will this
stop? It is starting to really hurt us”. Many of these people
come from Shawinigan—
Hon. Denis Coderre: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It is not the first time that the hon. member for Champlain has
gone off track. I think that the bill is very clear. It deals
with the Canada foundation for sustainable development
technology. He should stick to that if he wants to keep going.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): This issue is often raised.
We should perhaps give a lecture on chapter 13 of our procedure
and practice relating to the relevancy of debate, because the
same thing has happened several times today.
[English]
I would like to bring to the member's attention the relevancy
issue because it is an issue that normally on Fridays is raised
very often. Unless a member brings it to the attention of the
Chair, the Chair cannot act on its own.
In many instances the Speaker has indicated that a question
invokes the rule of relevancy by indicating to a member who has
been called to order, as the secretary of state has done in this
instance, the proper subject matter of the debate and how the
member's remarks were irrelevant.
[Translation]
I would like us to continue the debate on the issue before the
House. I do not wish to say that it is the hon. member's fault
only. During debate, the Chair allows considerable leeway as far
as the issues debated are concerned. It is not for me to judge
the content, but I believe that we must also respect the
procedures of the House.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Madam Speaker, I thank you and I thank my hon.
colleague across the way for having raised the issue of
relevancy. I thought my remarks were totally relevant, but I do
want to come back to the bill.
The matter of the riding of Saint-Maurice I was talking about is
a part of my immediate environment.
When I speak about the economy in my area, that is part of my
environment. When we speak about sustainable environment, I
sense that certain people are about to see their reign come to
an end.
1325
I must say that I will always be in favour of bills that really
favour the environment. I am against this bill, because it
concerns not the environment but democracy, which is the basis
of the life of this country.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a great
democrat who just took power in Quebec, Bernard Landry. I know
that he will work for the sustainable development of Quebec.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I know I do
not have much time as we have only five minutes left.
I rise once again to speak about the establishment of a
foundation by this government. The least we can say is that the
rules governing its establishment will not allow the public to
know what is going on. Neither will these rules allow the best
interests that are supposed to be served by this foundation to
actually be served.
This is not because there is no environmental problem in Canada.
This is not because Canada is not having trouble meeting the
targets it agreed to in Kyoto; on the contrary. The stakes are
extremely high.
With regard to the recommendation made to the federal
government, instead of ensuring that the extremely necessary
funding be provided in a timely fashion to advance these urgent
projects to develop technologies to address climate change and
pollution, the government is embarking on the creation of a
foundation through a rather bizarre piece of legislation.
Essentially the bill has only one purpose, as stated in clause 5:
5. The objects and purpose of the Foundation are to provide
funding to eligible recipients for eligible projects.
Its purpose is to provide funding for eligible projects.
It would be given an insufficient amount of money for the
sustainable development that is necessary. However the
definition of eligible project reads as follows:
“eligible project“means a project carried on, or to be carried
on, primarily in Canada by an eligible recipient to develop and
demonstrate new technologies to promote sustainable development,
including technologies to address climate change and air quality
issues.
The only guideline to this foundation if this definition of
eligible project. However, and this is also disturbing,
with respect to the establishment of the board of directors,
it is stipulated that there shall be seven members appointed
by the governor in council, that is by the government, on the
recommendation of the minister, and these seven members
shall co-opt members in the other areas.
What do we see? We see a great danger that this would be a small
group of friends whose task would be to fund eligible projects.
These eligible projects are extremely wide reaching and we do
not even know if this will go in the direction of the
commitments—
1330
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I am sorry to interrupt, but
the hon. member's time is up. I remind her, however, that she
will have five minutes to conclude her comments when debate
resumes.
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
BÉLANGER-CAMPEAU COMMISSION
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
recognize the conclusion of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission,
which proposed, in 1991, that the National Assembly of Quebec
adopt legislation on holding a referendum and the offer of a new
partnership, and that no federal legislation or regulations
should be incompatible with achieving this conclusion.
He said: Madam Speaker, I want to say how proud I am to speak
about the Bélanger-Campeau commission, since it will be 10 years
on March 27 that the commission tabled its report.
Before getting to the heart of the matter, however, I wish to
welcome a friend of mine who is taking a law course with me.
Twice a week I attend lectures to be able to better understand
the bills that are brought before us. I know that,
Madam Speaker, you have a law degree.
I want to welcome one of my colleagues, Clément Bélanger,
who wants to hear today's debate. I am glad he is here, even
though I do not always share his views on Canada's future. I am
very happy to see him here.
First, as members will recall, the Bélanger-Campeau commission
was created as a result of the failure of the Meech Lake accord.
Speaking about that as a Quebecer, it is hard to forget that
this was the first time in the history of Quebec that a head of
government, Robert Bourassa, asked for so little in terms of
collective powers.
The 1987 Meech Lake accord, which the provinces had three years
to ratify, was based on five main conditions. They were the
minimum we could accept. Asking for less collective powers would
have reduced us to the status of a municipality.
There were five main conditions in Meech: that Quebec be
recognized as a distinct society and that this should be given an
interpretative value in the preamble of an act;
that provinces have a veto, especially with regard to changes
to federal institutions;
That Quebec could submit a list of judges who, more faithful to
the civil law tradition, would be appointed to the supreme court
on the recommendation of the national assembly; that
spending power would be limited with regard to new shared cost
programs; and that Quebec would have its fair share of
immigration quotas, that is 23% or 24%.
As we can see, this was much less than what previous premiers
had asked for.
Members will remember that the Meech Lake accord was defeated by
two provinces, namely Newfoundland and Manitoba. Why should we
remember the Meech Lake accord? Why should we remember
Bélanger-Campeau commission?
1335
I felt rather happy last night to hear that the premier of
Quebec wished to bring the various studies up to date. Fifty-five
experts, of every persuasion, of every leaning, of every
allegiance, tabled submissions before the Bélanger-Campeau
commission.
I want to point one thing out. It is incredible that it has to
be remembered, 10 years after the Meech Lake accord failed, that
if Robert Bourassa were alive and still active in public life,
he could not have held a referendum along the very terms of the
Bélanger-Campeau commission.
I want to remind my hon. colleagues, particularly those from
English Canada, that the Bélanger-Campeau commission is not a
trivial fact of our history.
When the federal government through the federal-provincial
relations office, run by the Privy Council, refers to the
Bélanger-Campeau commission in its own documents, it refers to it
as a constitutional commission, which represents a moment of the
history of Quebec, the most intense moment of our collective
history, when we came close to having something similar to a
constituent assembly.
Thirty-six commissioners, 34 of whom are still alive, sat on the
Bélanger-Campeau commission, and everything that is stirring in
Quebec, everything that we love in Quebec, everything that
thinks in Quebec, was represented, including municipalities,
school boards, political movements, mostly from Quebec, and
artists. Everything that is stirring in Quebec was represented
on the Bélanger-Campeau commission.
In its conclusion the Bélanger-Campeau commission reminded us
that there are two major options for Quebec's future. Let me
quote in its entirety the main conclusion of the Bélanger-Campeau
commission:
Only two solutions are open to Quebec in redefining its status:
firstly, making a new, last, attempt to redefine its status
within the federal system; and, secondly, achieving sovereignty.
Ten years after the Bélanger-Campeau commission, after the
failure of the Meech Lake accord, after the failure of the
Charlottetown accord and after the referral to the supreme
court, I am telling the House that the evidence is now there:
Canadian federalism cannot be renewed to further the legitimate
aspirations of Quebecers, and the only relevant, valid,
appropriate and credible conclusion is Quebec's sovereignty.
A number of elements support such a statement. I was a member of
parliament in 1995; many members who are here now were not back
then, but I was. The Prime Minister had a motion passed to
recognize the distinct character of Quebec, a motion in which he
even gave Quebec a veto. What happened since 1995?
Whenever it was time to recognize Quebec as a nation, this
government always rejected what was passed in this House and
what was asked by the Bélanger-Campeau commission. What is the
point of adopting a motion saying that Quebec is a distinct
society if we cannot even be recognized for who we are?
Let me give some examples. The review of the bill on immigration
and citizenship was a complex issue, since francophones account
for only 2% of immigrants in North America.
Quebec has a citizenship policy. Whether we like it or not, from
the moment people can take part in democratic institutions,
citizenship becomes a reality.
1340
During debates in committee and in this House, when we reviewed
the issue of citizenship and immigration, we tabled an amendment
requesting that Quebec hold its own citizenship ceremony because
we all know the value of symbols. During the ceremony we would
have given new immigrants choosing Quebec a copy of our charter
of the French language, our Quebec charter of human rights and
freedoms and our elections act.
How did the government reply to that motion? It spurned it.
Through this lack of support for our request, once again, the
government was showing that it does not seriously intend to
recognize us as a nation.
What does Bill C-20 mean? Bill C-20 where the great democratic
forces in Quebec isolated the government and reminded the
government that it cannot legitimately expect to write the
referendum question in lieu of the national assembly.
I remind members that if Robert Bourassa had wanted to hold a
referendum on the Bélanger-Campeau commission's report, under
Bill C-20, and more specifically clause 4, he would not have had
the freedom to do so. I dare any member of parliament to prove
to me that it would be possible to ask a two part referendum
question under clause 4 of Bill C-20.
Worse yet, since the early 1990s we have seen an
unprecedented attempt to deny Quebec's identity and reinforce
the Canadian identity.
The House might recall that in 1995, the year of the
referendum, the government did one of the most anti-democratic
things that can be done politically.
I see that the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport is being
very offhand about this. I ask him to remember that in 1995,
the same year in which was held the referendum under the
referendum act, René Lévesque's greatest legacy, this government
did not even have the decency to respect the legislation in
question. During the referendum campaign it spent five times
more than the authorized ceiling in Quebec. Is that how it
views democracy? It spent five times more than was allowed.
Worse yet, it used citizenship courts to promote its political
option and to hand out vast numbers of citizenship certificates.
I believe in immigration because Quebec is condemned to be a
land of immigration. When we look at which countries take in
the most immigrants, Quebec is in fifth place. It is right
after Australia, the United States and New Zealand. Quebecers'
generosity and openness is well known.
Can there be any justification for a government not only failing
to comply with the referendum act but also using citizenship
courts to issue 43,000 citizenship certificates, 11,000 of them
in one month? If that had been a lasting trend, we would have
noticed it in 1996, 1997, and 1998. In 1996 citizenship
certificate quotas dropped by 70%.
This is what is unacceptable in a democratic system. Instead of
maintaining the separation of powers between the legislative,
executive and judicial arms, instead of maintaining the
historical perspective required in discussions of such matters,
this government has breached one of the most time honoured
principles of our democracy. It has used the judiciary to
promote its political option. This is not acceptable.
1345
In Quebec there are three issues on which everyone agrees,
regardless of their political affiliations. Claude Ryan could
call on the spirit of such a collective opinion and the
Bélanger-Campeau commission has embodied them. What are these
issues? Quebec is a nation, and all nations have the right to
choose their destiny.
These last few years the federal government has put in place a
formidable propaganda machine. Every year since 1996 the
federal government has spent, on average, $100 million a year on
initiatives promoting federalism, $100 million of which a part
surely comes from taxes paid by Quebecers.
The intergovernmental affairs minister said yesterday, with his
usual outraged tone, that the government is not legitimate. The
government of Quebec, led by Robert Bourassa, held the first
constituent assembly of our history, at which all the political
forces were represented.
A certain amount of studies were made. It is the duty of the
government to update those studies because we will not accept to
be treated like a simple province because Quebec is not like
Prince Edward Island. It is not like Saskatchewan. It is not
like Alberta. With all the respect I have for their
distinctiveness, but they are not like Quebec.
I see that my time has expired, but with the unanimous consent
of the House I could complete my speech in five minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The member will still have
five minutes at the end because it is his motion.
However, is there unanimous consent of the House to allow the
member to continue with his speech?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Bill Matthews (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
listened attentively to the hon. member and I want to say that I
am quite pleased to be participating in the debate on Motion No.
220 which has been tabled by the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
recognize the conclusion of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission,
which proposed, in 1991, that the National Assembly of Quebec
adopt legislation on holding a referendum and the offer of a new
partnership, and that no federal legislation or regulations
should be incompatible with achieving this conclusion.
The motion at least has the merit of providing us with the
opportunity to rectify certain facts and to set the record
straight in this debate on Quebec secession. The motion is
clearly designed to challenge the legitimacy of Bill C-20, which
was passed last year by Canada's parliament.
It is therefore necessary to respond to the motion by turning
again to the main arguments that were advanced in support of the
clarity act. I would first like to address the portion of the
hon. member's motion that reads as follows: “that no federal
legislation or regulations should be incompatible with achieving
this conclusion”.
I find the hon. member's wording of the motion extremely
one-sided. It seems to imply for all practical purposes, and in
a manner that is simplistic to say the least, that the current
Government of Canada is trying to prevent the government of
Quebec from holding an umpteenth referendum on Quebec secession,
an option that it is attempting above all to camouflage through
vague hints of an alleged will for association.
How many times will it have to be reiterated that the current
Government of Canada is in no way seeking to prevent the national
assembly from consulting Quebecers on any matter whatsoever?
It should be noted that a recent poll has confirmed that only a
minuscule proportion, less than 10%, of Quebecers want such a
referendum to be held during the current mandate, while 49% say
they never want one to be held, and 76% of respondents,
regardless of option preferred, want Quebec to remain in Canada.
1350
I would urge the hon. member to use his inside contacts with the
current government of Quebec and to remind Mr. Landry of these
facts, since to date he still does not seem to get the message.
Regardless of these considerations, I can only remind the hon.
member, who certainly cannot not have forgotten, that Bill C-20,
passed last year by Canada's parliament, in no way sought to
prevent Quebecers from deciding on their political future. As
respected a personality as Mr. Claude Castonguay emphasized this
point eloquently before the legislative committee studying Bill
C-20 when he said about the bill:
I did not see anything in this bill that limits the jurisdiction
of the Quebec National Assembly nor the right of Quebecers to
decide their future.
Indeed, Bill C-20 in no way prevents the national assembly from
wording the referendum question as it sees fit. A future
referendum would have to be held in full compliance with
provincial laws. The clarity act merely specifies that the
federal government will not enter into negotiations unless a
clear majority of Quebecers vote in favour of secession in
response to a question as passed by the national assembly and do
determine, through a resolution, whether the question is clear.
It is very important that the question be clear.
I ask hon. members to remember that Bill C-20 was our response
to the opinion of the supreme court in the Quebec secession
reference which was issued in the summer of 1998. Like that
opinion of the court, it emphasizes the need to ask a clear
question—I emphasize again, a clear question—and to obtain an
equally clear majority.
I understand that some members opposite do not particularly like
the words clear question and clear majority. They find something
radically wrong with a clear question and a clear majority.
Paragraph 87 of the opinion specified states:
The democratic principle—would demand that considerable weight
be given to a clear expression by the people of Quebec of their
will to secede from Canada, even though a referendum, in itself
and without more, has no direct legal effect, and could not in
itself bring about unilateral secession.
Further on in paragraphs 92 and 151 it states:
The continued existence and operation of the Canadian
constitutional order could not be indifferent to a clear
expression of a clear majority of Quebecers that they no longer
wish to remain in Canada.
The opinion referred to a clear question on numerous occasions
and the supreme court used the expression clear majority 13
times. Why put so much emphasis on clarity? The answer is
obvious: the consequences of secession are so grave that it must
be clear that the province's population does in fact want to
cease to be a part of Canada. Let me say as well that of course
secession has very grave consequences for other provinces and
other people of Canada as well.
A question that refers to the possibility of a political or
economic association is not clear, because if the response is
favourable, how can it be known whether it applies to
independence, to a new partnership or to a form of independence
providing for some type of association?
A clear answer to a clear question: who can be opposed to this
principle other than those who, not once but twice, have
presented Quebecers with vague, misleading options, with the sole
objective, as Mr. Parizeau boasted himself, of getting the
lobsters into the pot? Mr. Parizeau boasted publicly that all
they wanted to do was get the lobsters into the pot. We all know
what happens to lobsters when we get them into the pot. They get
cooked.
I can well imagine the objections the Bloc raises in this
connection, just as I am hearing now from an hon. member
opposite. The Bloc maintains that the questions asked during the
1980 and 1995 referenda were clear. On the contrary, they were
nothing of the kind, because they referred to such vague,
nebulous concepts as association and partnership which, as I just
pointed out, tend to cloud and skew the issue.
To demonstrate the confusion generated by the question asked on
the last referendum, I want to refer to the statement made by
Professor Maurice Pinard before the parliamentary committee
studying Bill C-20.
1355
In Professor Pinard's own words:
In 1995, only about 50% of respondents realized that sovereignty
did not necessarily mean partnership. The others believed
that sovereignty would not be declared if partnership could not
be achieved.
How can it be contested, in light of such figures, that the
referendum question put to Quebecers in 1995 was ambiguous when
its true significance escaped half the voters?
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I would remind members that
all questions and comments must be put to other members though
the Chair.
I would also ask members on both sides to be careful in their
choice of words. We must show respect.
[English]
Mr. Bill Matthews: Madam Speaker, it seems that my
remarks are striking a chord or a nerve with some members
opposite. I do not know why that is. I guess it goes back to
the point I just made that the referendum question put to
Quebecers in 1995 was ambiguous.
The significance escaped half the voters. How can the
government be reproached for requiring that in future such debate
be held in a context of pure clarity? Is that too much to ask?
No one on this side of the House thinks it is. We want clarity.
We want a clear question and we want a clear majority.
In conclusion, I want to make one further criticism of the
motion. It attempts to paint a false picture of what the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission really proposed. One of the
scenarios in the commission's recommendations was that a
referendum on Quebec sovereignty should be held. One would have
to conclude that this proposal runs counter to what is being
touted these days by the leader of the Parti Quebecois, who talks
about some form of confederative association without defining
what it actually means.
The Bélanger-Campeau Commission also envisioned the possibility
of an offer, originating from the Government of Canada, of a new
constitutional partnership. Under such a scenario, Quebec could
and would stay within Canada. That is the true nature of the
partnership the Bélanger-Campeau Commission was talking about.
Needless to say, it in no way corresponds to the meaning the
hon. member opposite wants to convey through his motion, which is
every bit as vague and misleading as the question put to
Quebecers in 1980 and 1995.
Quebecers already have an effective partnership, one that works
very well. That partnership has a name, and that name is Canada.
Quebecers want to keep it that way and they are absolutely
right. The Government of Canada, and I cannot reiterate this
strongly enough, does not want to prevent Quebecers from making
their choice.
[Translation]
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, first, I would like to say a few words about the
Clarity Act.
[English]
The question of the clear majority was mentioned by the hon.
parliamentary secretary. That provision of the law, it deserves
to be said here, is very unclear. It is important to point that
out because the law is often presented as a model of clarity.
However that part of the law does not specify what a clear
majority would be. It only says that we would hold hearings
after a referendum has occurred and after 50% has been achieved
in deciding whether a majority has been clear.
When I was a private citizen about this time last year, I came
as an expert witness before the committee looking at Bill C-20. I
made this observation and suggested that provision of the law be
changed. I regret that my advice was not taken.
I suggest, however, that what the government has done is given
more credibility to the 50% plus one model while taking away from
that sense of validity. The government has, therefore, in
passing this law, perhaps achieved the opposite of its objective.
I will also read the motion we are debating today, because I
want to make a point with regard to it:
1400
[Translation]
The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
recognize the conclusion of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission,
which proposed, in 1991, that the National Assembly of Quebec
adopt legislation on holding a referendum and the offer of a new
partnership, and that no federal legislation or regulations
should be incompatible with achieving this conclusion.
[English]
That is not quite historically accurate. The last part of the
motion which follows the last comma does not accurately reflect
what was said by the Bélanger-Campeau commission in its report.
The Bélanger-Campeau commission made four pages of
recommendations. The four pages were primarily in the form of a
proposed law to be put before the National Assembly of Quebec.
Part of the proposed law, which was adopted by the national
assembly, called for the establishment of a parliamentary
commission of the national assembly for the review of an offer.
I can find nothing in the recommendations that suggests no
federal law or regulation ought to be adopted contrary to those
recommendations or contrary to the offer to be made. We ought to
be clear that we are not debating an historically accurate motion
today.
The hon. parliamentary secretary had a good point when he said
that the real function of the motion was to suggest that the
clarity act was illegitimate. It is an awkward way of
approaching it. If I were to regard it as illegitimate, I would
attack some of the contents of the act, such as the part to which
I just made reference. I find other parts of the act to be quite
valuable, particularly the requirement that a clear question be
asked.
The subtext of the motion makes reference to or hints at a
proposal put forward by Jean-François Lisée in his book Sortie
de Secours. He proposed to put forward one part of the
supreme court's decision in its reference, Renvoi relatif à la
sécession du Québec, and I will read the section:
[Translation]
A clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of
secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession
initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation
would have to recognize.
[English]
This has been read by Mr. Lisée as meaning that not only could a
proposal on secession put forward and voted upon by the people of
Quebec be taken to the Government of Canada as grounds for
mandatory good faith negotiations, but so too could a proposal
for some form of new partnership.
It is an interesting reading of the court's reference and not
one the court intended. The court is always happy to make
readings of the constitution that bear no resemblance to the
meaning put there by the original writers of the constitution, so
perhaps fair is fair.
It seems Mr. Lisée's intention is to have a referendum question
on a new partnership put before the people of Quebec, one that
would seem reasonable to the people of Quebec but would be worded
in such a way that it would not appear reasonable to people in
the rest of the country. It would create some form of
negotiations that would be impossible to resolve, much like the
negotiations that took place during the Meech-Charlottetown
period in our history. This would cause the kind of crisis that
the Parti Quebecois government is having so much trouble
generating on its own, no matter how many comments about red rags
are made by the premier of Quebec.
We must be aware that the subtext is in the motion. If it were
a votable motion, we would have good grounds to vote against it
and to reject its proposals. I also want to make reference to
the fact that there is something legitimate in what is being
said.
I will turn to another group that is proposing changes to the
Canadian constitution.
I am referring to the group led by Stephen Harper, Ken
Boessenkool, Tom Flanagan and others known as the Alberta 6. In
its open letter to Ralph Klein about two months ago, it proposed
that Alberta:
Use Section 88 of the Supreme Court's decision on the Quebec
Secession Reference to force Senate reform back on the national
agenda. Our reading of that decision is that the federal
government and other provinces must seriously consider our
proposal for constitutional reform endorsed by “a clear majority
on a clear question” in a provincial referendum.
1405
Referring directly to the premier, the group said:
You acted decisively once before to hold a senatorial election.
Now is time to drive the issue further.
It is saying that provinces need to have some sort of means to
force on to the national agenda issues which are currently only
on the provincial agenda but which are legitimate. That is a
legitimate point they are making.
That point would be equally legitimate in the case of the
concerns of Quebecers. Their concerns are unable to make it on
to the national agenda, largely because they get tangled up in
the whole question of separation versus remaining in Canada, and
the partisan divide that exists in Quebec, as it does everywhere,
because of our highly partisan political structure.
Referendums do break through that. We saw that demonstrated
brilliantly when we in fact had a crisis in the country. It
looked as if the crisis would drive the country apart. A
referendum was held nationwide in October 1992, largely because
of the Bélanger-Campeau commission recommendations.
Canadians realized that it was a great deal more complex than
they had thought it was. The issue was not simply a matter of
those rotten separatists, those rotten people in Ottawa or in the
rest of the country who would not listen to us and give
legitimacy to our positions.
We realized that the constitutional proposals offered were in a
vast unworkable package deal. A majority of Quebecers voted
against those proposals, as did a majority of people in a number
of the other provinces. The issue itself faded away and the
unity crisis that could have broken up the country also passed.
It is my own reading of that time. I was an active participant
on the no side in that referendum. We were in greater danger as
a country in 1992 than we were three years later in 1995 when the
provincial referendum in Quebec was held.
While I am a supporter of direct democracy, I am probably the
strongest supporter of direct democracy in the House, with the
possible exception of my hon. colleague from Vancouver Island
North. Nevertheless, I have some reservations about this sort of
back door method of introducing the concept of direct democracy,
and of putting regional concerns through a referendum on to the
national stage.
I would suggest reasons for this kind of reservation by way of
reference to one of the great constitutional thinkers in the
British parliamentary tradition. I am referring to Albert Venn
Dicey who wrote the brilliant work Law of the Constitution
in the 1880s. It was then updated until his death in 1915.
He talked about the role of referendum and plebiscite in the
British parliamentary system and whether it was compatible with
the system. He suggested that the plebiscite, as practised in
France, was incompatible with it. This is the kind of referendum
we are talking about here. What he meant by plebiscite was:
initiated by government usually on some vague proposal as opposed
to specific legislation such as an order to negotiate.
By contrast, he suggested the Swiss model of citizen initiated
referendum on a specific legislative means. That would be the
most productive way of achieving the kind of goals that might
unite us all, including my hon. colleague who suggested the
motion.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is a great
pleasure to speak to the motion brought forward by my brilliant
colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
The member has defended, with all the passion he is known for
and all his ability, recognized by all I am sure, the need to
acknowledge that Bill C-20 would have prevented Robert Bourassa
from holding the referendum he wanted to hold right after the
passage in Quebec of the act calling for a referendum in the
fall of 1992.
1410
This point has to be made. It is very enlightening. The members
feel reassured when they hear the government's propaganda, when
they hear the government saying again and again that there are
no more problems in Quebec, that Quebecers do not want a
referendum.
A few months before the 1995 referendum, however, Quebecers did
not want a referendum. Yet they still went to vote, 94% of them,
and we all know what the results almost were. Canada had to
resort to those things that my colleague talked about to ensure
that the referendum would not pass.
I would like to point out that all this is not a whim.
I will not go as far back as 1760, but in passing I would like
to remind members that, when Lord Durham arrived here in 1838,
he made this now famous statement “I found two nations warring
in the bosom of a single state”. It would appear nothing has
changed since then.
What Durham had understood and what we are still struggling
with, is that French Canadians had to be put in a minority
situation before the colonies could have responsible government.
Once they were in a minority situation, responsible government
could be granted. That is in fact what happened. Durham wanted
to go further; he wanted assimilation. He said it was for “the
good of the French Canadians who would for ever be carriers of
water”.
Yes, Quebecers were reduced to a minority.
For a long time, Quebecers expressed their nationalism in
various ways, including wanting Canada to sever its ties with
England, while the good English Canadians were very attached,
and many still are, to mother England.
In the sixties, following the independence of the former
colonies in Africa, Asia, and the liberation of Cuba and South
America, a more radical nationalist movement emerged.
Daniel Johnson whose father, an Irishman by birth and,
a contributor to Sinn Fein, did not speak French, ran
for his party saying “My platform is equality or independence”.
This was in 1965. His own father did not speak French; he was
Irish.
Because of this, perhaps he had a better understanding of the
fact that the situation of French Canadians deserved, if they
could not achieve equality, that there be a national movement
for independence. This was Daniel Johnson in 1965. I urge
members to read his book again. It is excellent.
The movement that became the Parti Quebecois grew progressively:
in 1966, 8% of the votes went to the indépendantistes; in 1970,
it was 23%; in 1997, 30% and in 1976, 41%. For the 1980
referendum, Mr. Lévesque, who had really wanted this country, a
country associated with Canada, had to leave, not without having
entered into negotiations with Mr. Mulroney, who had just been
elected. Why? To regain the powers Quebec had lost with the
unilateral patriation of the constitution by Trudeau.
1415
René Lévesque had to leave. Pierre-Marc Johnson was premier for a
short time. Who took up the torch to try at least to regain the
powers lost because of Trudeau? It was a good federalist, Robert
Bourassa. It was Robert Bourassa who led this negotiation.
It was Robert Bourassa who was premier when the Meech Lake
accord failed in June 1990.
What has happened since? We had the Charlottetown accord, which
was far from being clear. The Charlottetown accord did not solve
anything. In 1995 there was a referendum and the outcome could
not have been closer. One might think that everything is solved.
Come on.
There is something incomprehensible in the blindness shown by
the House of Commons and by the political class in Canada. There
is something absolutely incredible. As I said, this is
incomprehensible.
When we go abroad, what seems the most incomprehensible is the
fact that, on Canada's side, nothing serious was done
afterwards. Nothing serious was done in this House. There was a
minor motion that, somewhere, contained the word people, and
another motion that gave an extra veto to British Columbia,
which would make it even harder for Quebec to use its veto.
What my young and brilliant colleague wants to bring back in
this House is at least a first hour of debate on that
substantive issue, because Quebec will never leave on the ocean.
We will always remain neighbours with Ontario and the maritimes.
Bill C-20 did not settle anything. Do not be lulled by it.
It does not settle anything because the desire for sovereignty,
where attempts were made elsewhere to crush it, has grown
stronger. It seems to me that this parliament should
recognize—and this is what my colleague's motion is asking
for—that this desire must be allowed to be expressed unimpeded.
But Bill C-20 is an impediment.
However, impediments never stopped this desire from being
expressed. My point is that parliament ought to realize that
this desire, this will be expressed.
The sovereignist movement in Quebec has been exemplary,
exemplary in terms of democracy. We should be regularly thanked
for that. We owe much of it to René Lévesque who, at the time of
the FLQ crisis, it must be remembered, said that as long as the
battle could be won democratically, violence was unacceptable.
René Lévesque remained steadfast. Finally, the movement
disappeared. In fact, when all the police forces investigating
the FLQ pulled out, we realized that it no longer existed. But
that is another story.
What my colleague is pointing out, and I want to point out also,
is that Bill C-20 is designed to prevent the people from
expressing its desire to be both sovereign and associated with
Canada. I cannot see how an illegitimate law will prevent that
from happening.
1420
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Through you, Madam
Speaker, I want to thank all those who have taken part in this
debate as well as the students who have listened to it. I do not
know the name of their school but I am impressed with the fact
that they are here on a Friday afternoon and I thank them for
it.
What we have to remind ourselves this afternoon is that Quebec
is in itself a nation which aspires to a different future than
Saskatchewan, British Columbia or Prince Edward Island.
I am grateful to the member for Mercier, whose well-known
knowledge of history has touched the member for Hull—Aylmer,
for reminding us that the sovereignist movement is based first
and foremost on a very strong attachment to democracy.
This attachment is so strong that three of the main leaders of
the movement have created political parties to ensure that their
option would be systematically submitted to an assessment and
acceptance by the electorate.
Ever since the Bélanger-Campeau commission, it has been clear
that one cannot be both a Canadian and a Quebecer. Why is it
impossible? I must say that this has nothing to do with
individual friendships because, on a personal level, I have
nothing but friends here in the House.
It is just simply impossible to live within a system of
government where all the provinces are considered equal in fact
and in law and, at the same time, to think that Quebec will be
recognized as a nation.
We cannot live under a government which unilaterally patriated
the Constitution, which forced upon us the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, the charter that invalidated complete
sections of our own Charter of the French Language, Bill 101,
which is the main vehicle for securing public participation in
our collective culture through the French language.
Sometimes, incompatibility runs very deep, and Quebecers will
have to realize that. It is far from insignificant that, ever
since its creation by the former government, under Kim Campbell
at the beginning of the 1990s, the Department of Canadian
Heritage has constantly sought to strengthen the Canadian
identity.
In the 1990s, the Department of Canadian Heritage commissioned
three comprehensive studies that proved that we do not have in
Canada any national symbol that strikes a chord with all
Canadians from sea to sea.
Multiculturalism must be a partial explanation. We think
that in our society all cultures should not be put on the same
footing and that Quebec will keep its distinctive
character.
In the coming years Quebecers will have to make their choices,
with these issues and identity factors in mind. I am grateful
that the premier of Quebec has reminded us that Quebec is a
different province and that it constitutes a nation.
The government can use all its propaganda machine to sweep the
national issue under the carpet.
However, this issue will periodically re-emerge for as long as
Quebec will not democratically choose to become independent.
When we will have chosen to become independent, we will be able
to speak to each other as equal partners, nation to nation, each
controlling its own political space.
We know that the idea of partnership was always at the heart of
the sovereignist project, from René Lévesque and Jacques
Parizeau to Lucien Bouchard and now, of course, Bernard Landry.
We do want to maintain our economic ties with our Canadian
partner, but we want to do it within a political frame that will
recognize what we are.
That is what the Bélanger-Campeau commission reminded us of. The
commission said: “There are two options”.
The first was to give Canada still another chance. Only
Quebecers could believe federalism could still be reformed, even
after the failure of the Meech Lake accord, even after our most
basic demands were rejected, even after the Meech Lake accord
was rejected.
1425
The Bélanger-Campeau commission gave this option a chance. It has
now become clear that the only fitting and democratic option
left to Quebecers is sovereignty, and we are convinced that it
will be achieved.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired.
Since the motion has not been made a votable item, it is dropped
from the order paper.
[English]
It being 2.25 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.25 p.m.)