37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 070
CONTENTS
Friday, June 1, 2001
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| KANESATAKE INTERIM LAND BASE GOVERNANCE ACT
|
| Bill S-24. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Robert Nault |
| Third reading
|
| Hon. Robert Nault |
1010
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1015
1020
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1025
1030
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1035
1040
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1045
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1050
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
1100
| THIRD WORLD EYE CARE SOCIETY
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| CANADIAN DOLLAR
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| ECUADOR
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| EMPLOYER SUPPORT AWARDS
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| ONTARIO TECHNICAL SKILLS DESIGN COMPETITION
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
1105
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| ACADÉMIE LES ESTACADES
|
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
| BOATING SAFETY
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| CEDAR LODGE RESTORATION RESORT
|
| Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
1110
| CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE IN WOMEN'S HEALTH
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| LABOUR
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| NATIONAL CHILDREN'S DAY
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| QUEBEC MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| RCMP
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1115
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1120
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1125
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ENERGY INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. John Manley |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. John Williams |
1130
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1135
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1140
| DISASTER RELIEF
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| DAIRY INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1145
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| WATER RESOURCES
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1150
| TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
|
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
|
| Mr. Dominic LeBlanc |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1155
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| PORT INFRASTRUCTURES
|
| Mr. Jean-Yves Roy |
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1200
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. John Manley |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1205
| Modernization and Improvement of Procedures of House of
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| CANADIAN PEACEKEEPING SERVICE MEDAL ACT
|
| Bill C-356. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| PROTECTION OF PRIVACY (SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBERS) ACT
|
| Bill C-357. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Bill C-358. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| OIL AND GAS OMBUDSMAN ACT
|
| Bill C-359. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-360. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1210
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-361. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
|
| Bill C-362. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| DEFICIT PREVENTION ACT
|
| Bill C-363. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| DEPARTMENTAL INTERNAL AUDIT ACT
|
| Bill C-364. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
|
| Bill C-365. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADA SEAT BELT ACT
|
| Bill C-366. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CONSUMER CREDIT INFORMATION ACT
|
| Bill C-367. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1215
| PETITIONS
|
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Bell Canada
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Veterans Affairs
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| KANESATAKE INTERIM LAND BASE GOVERNANCE ACT
|
| Bill S-24. Third reading
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1220
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-11. Report stage
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Mark Assad |
1225
1230
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1235
1240
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1245
1250
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1255
1300
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1305
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-11. Report stage
|
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 2 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 3 deferred
|
| Motion No. 4 agreed to
|
1310
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Motions Nos. 5 and 6
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Motion No. 7
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Motion No. 8
|
1315
1320
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1325
| Mr. John Herron |
1330
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| ARMENIA
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Motion
|
1335
1340
1345
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1350
1355
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1400
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1405
1410
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1415
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
1420
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1425
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 070
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, June 1, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
KANESATAKE INTERIM LAND BASE GOVERNANCE ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-24, an act to
implement an agreement between the Mohawks of Kanesatake and Her
Majesty in right of Canada respecting governance of certain lands
by the Mohawks of Kanesatake and to amend an act in consequence,
as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third
time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved that the bill be read the third time
and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians will remember the summer
of 1990. Oka acted as a national wake-up call. It sent a clear
signal that as a country we had to take concrete action to ensure
that the concerns of people like the Mohawks of Kanesatake were
not only heard but acted upon.
This is precisely what the Government of Canada and the Mohawks
of Kanesatake have been doing ever since the barricades came
down.
1010
For example, talks are currently underway between current grand
chief James Gabriel, his council, the mayor of Oka and his
municipal council to negotiate a harmonization of Kanesatake laws
and Oka bylaws on neighbouring lands in the village of Oka as
required by Bill S-24.
With incremental steps, we have proven that together the path of
negotiation and reconciliation is the best option for all parties
involved. Bill S-24 would raise the bar another notch and would
continue our work to resolve the outstanding issues confronting
the Mohawk people of Kanesatake.
Bill S-24, and the agreement it would implement, would formally
recognize an interim land base for the Mohawks of Kanesatake. It
would not be a permanent land base because the agreement in no
way represents a final resolution of land issues for Kanesatake.
It is entirely possible that additional lands may in the future
be brought under the agreement should both parties agree.
While the agreement is limited in its scope, it nevertheless
represents a major breakthrough. Kanesatake Mohawk lands would
now fall under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. It
is something the Mohawks of Kanesatake have sought for many
years. The legislation would prevent the lands from falling
under the Indian Act, something they are determined to avoid.
They fully realize that other first nations are trying to
extricate themselves from the cumbersome provisions of the act.
It was for this very reason that I recently launched national
consultations on first nations governance. Although Bill S-24
was developed before consultations on governance reform got
underway, it is entirely consistent with the thrust of our
initiative.
These measures set the stage for further negotiations on a range
of substantive issues. They are the first crucial step in the
ongoing process of ensuring peace and prosperity for the
community. In the end that is our overarching objective no matter
which side of the negotiating table we sit on.
The legislation sets out a framework by which the two
communities would be able to peacefully co-exist, paving the way
for economic and social development and an improved quality of
life for all the people living in and around the area.
The legislation is a tremendous accomplishment and a tribute to
the hard work and tenacity of all parties involved, most
particularly, the Mohawks of Kanesatake. The future is as bright
and promising as the young democracy that has taken hold in
Kanesatake since the barricades came down and that we as
legislators are helping to shape. This achievement should be
celebrated not just in the halls of parliament but across the
country.
I would like to thank our colleagues in the Senate for their
part in the review and adoption of Bill S-24. I urge all hon.
members to follow the example of the Mohawk people of Kanesatake
who acted in good faith to achieve this landmark agreement by
voting to adopt the historic legislation.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to
rise and speak today to Bill S-24, the Kanesatake interim land
base governance act.
As my colleagues have stated previously at second reading and in
committee, the Canadian Alliance will be supporting the bill. We
believe the intent of the bill is correct and that it is one
small incremental step in correcting a long outstanding issue for
the Kanesatake Mohawks.
I will however use this opportunity to again express our concern
over the manner in which the government and the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development brought the bill to the
House of Commons.
My first concern, and I say it respectfully to the minister, is
the way in which the minister brought the bill to the House. It
was tabled in the other place first. My colleague from
Nanaimo—Cowichan stated it previously but I believe the
minister's comments during the Senate committee hearings are
worth repeating.
1015
On April 25 the minister stated:
Without being too derogatory to my own colleagues in the House,
maybe things will go better if I send them here first. Perhaps
that is a good trend to continue. We will test it for a while.
We have other pieces of legislation that will be coming your way
in the next year that we may have some discussions about and
consider, with the approval of the House leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will agree with me when I state
that I and many members on both sides of the House find this
attitude and this approach completely unacceptable.
The second matter I am concerned with is that without the
insistence of the official opposition party, the Canadian
Alliance, the bill would have been rushed through with rather
undue haste without committee hearings and therefore without the
opportunity to hear from concerned Kanesatake community members
who oppose the bill. When there is opposition for various
reasons, we need to hear from those who are opposing. Maybe we
could learn from them as well.
Lastly I wish to state for the record that although we will be
supporting Bill S-24, we have concerns over the process that was
used in the handling of the bill through the negotiation in that
territory and, in particular, the manner in which the community
was not fully involved.
I fully realize that no process is perfect and that not everyone
will be satisfied with the end results. However, the government
and particularly the minister having responsibility need to
reflect for the future on the inadequacies of this process and
improve upon it for all future negotiations so that there is
co-operation among parties on these matters.
Many community members feel that they were not a part of this
important process. I would like to take this opportunity to read
into the record excerpts from a letter that was received from a
Kanesatake community member following the committee hearings. I
would like to thank him and others who have attempted input in
this manner. This letter was addressed to the chair of the
standing committee in Ottawa and states:
Good day to you, please allow me to introduce myself, my name is
Eugene Nicholas, member of the Kanesatake band, No. 0690074401,
province of Quebec.
It has come to my attention that there are hearings being
conducted on the Kanesatake Land Governance Agreement, referred
to as: Bill S-24. I would like to extend you an invitation to
our community, to give the community members a chance to voice
their concerns and opinions/facts before the Standing Committee,
before Bill S-24 is passed as law.
I am concerned with these proceedings because of a lack of
information and input from the community level. We are not
consulted or given the facts behind this agreement. Our Leaders
and negotiators have neglected to properly inform and consult the
population on all matters pertaining to this accord. We have not
publicly debated the contents of this said agreement in which
constructive and positive measures can be suggested in regards to
our community.
I view the entire arrangement as questionable.
Last year when the agreement was to be initialled, no one from
the community was invited/advised or told to be present for such
a historical signing, other than the Chiefs of the Council, INAC
representative Walter Walling, and Mr. Eric Maldoff, federal
negotiator.
Last year, Mr. Robert Nault was in our community to sign or
initial this agreement, and ironically it was done on Aboriginal
Day, where our members were celebrating in the Pines area. Mr.
Walter Walling of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs
Canada, was seen riding in a Kanesatake Police Vehicle, making
sure that trouble makers (opposition to the agreement) were not
in the area! Why was he doing this? Is it in the Federal
Government's interest to have their public servants do community
police work, or is it to cover up the fact that the Minister was
here and that we were not permitted to attend this event because
it was supposed to remain a secret? In other facts where the
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs provided funds to hire
an individual to privately investigate our police officers. I
found this to be quite odd. Does the federal department (INAC)
other than the Solicitor General, provide discretionary funds for
this?
We were not allowed to speak to the media because Mr. Eric
Maldoff issued a media blackout, which meant that we could not
give our opinions to the public, and they call this a free
country? Only James Gabriel and anyone who favoured the
agreement, was heard or published.
I urge you to hear the community speak for themselves, they
deserve a chance to be heard and it is their right, after all it
is a human right. Also, you will know the truth about this
issue.
I strongly encourage the Standing Committee to come to
Kanesatake to see for yourselves.
Yours in Peace and Friendship, Eugene Kanatiio Nicholas, Band
Registry No. 0690074401
I would like that letter on the record.
1020
In concluding, I would like to thank the Liberal members who
stated to our chief critic of aboriginal affairs that they were
pleased to have met those who were dissenting. They said it was
good to hear other points of view. They indicated in committee
that they were pleased to have met and listened to those
community members, one represented by this letter, and to have
had the opportunity to hear other viewpoints on this very
important legislation. I believe they have realized it is
imperative that the parliamentary process not be subject to
whims, to just moving things through too quickly at the whim of
any particular minister.
I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate and
anticipate that we will have continued involvement in the future,
hopefully in constructive ways, as the minister brings matters
like this forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
purpose of Bill S-24, the Kanesatake interim land base governance
act, is to implement an historic agreement which recognizes, for
the first time, a land base for the Mohawks of Kanesatake, as
well as the powers to exercise jurisdiction over these lands.
It is important to point out that the word interim is used
precisely because there is the possibility of other lands being
added in future, with the consent of both parties.
Bill S-24 will make it possible to settle Mohawk property rights,
thereby reducing the economic uncertainty surrounding the
ownership and use of the area's lands and resources.
Our position is based on a careful analysis of the situation as
a whole. In addition, on May 14, the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois and the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, our
party's aboriginal affairs critic, met with the Kanesatake
Mohawk band council and its Grand Chief, James Gabriel.
This agreement is the outcome of long months of negotiation and
is evidence of the desire to create a peaceful and positive
atmosphere between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples,
following on the disturbing events of 1990 to which the minister
referred.
The Bloc Quebecois' favourable position on this bill is
indicative of our party's openness to the comprehensive claims
of aboriginal peoples and is part of the constructive dialogue
our party has maintained with the first nations for quite some
time now.
The Mohawks' present land base has always been kept as public
lands, rather than reserve lands as defined in the Indian Act.
For this reason, the band council did not have the same legal
tools at its disposal as other first nations for controlling and
ensuring the development of its own land base, or for preventing
these lands from being used for purposes contrary to their
interests.
On June 21, 2000, negotiators for the Kanesatake Mohawks and the
government signed an historic agreement with respect to
Kanesatake governance of the interim land base.
This agreement constitutes the first legal recognition by the
Government of Canada of the ability of the Mohawks of Kanesatake
to determine and control the use of their interim land base.
The effect of the agreement is to transfer to the Mohawks of
Kanesatake lands over which they will exercise full authority,
thus putting an end to years of legal uncertainty.
It is worthy pointing out that this very uncertainty was one of
the key causes of the Oka crisis in 1990. The powder keg was
set off, hon. members will recall, by the expansion of a golf
course onto land claimed by the Mohawks.
Under the terms of the agreement, the Kanesatake Mohawk lands
would fall under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act,
1867, which gives the Government of Canada exclusive legislative
power over Indians and lands reserved for the Indians.
According to the agreement, however, the lands covered by the
agreement do not become a reserve within the meaning of the
Indian Act, but belong to the band council, which thus obtains
jurisdiction with respect to the maintenance of law and order.
These lands are therefore guaranteed clear legal status along
with protection from coming under the cumbersome and restrictive
land management provisions of the present Indian Act.
The agreement with the Government of Canada will empower the
Mohawk community to adopt its own laws and regulations relating
to the land occupied by it. The band council will be able to
enact laws relating to waste management, building inspection,
zoning and wildlife protection and management. It can also
regulate traffic.
1025
In addition, the agreement gives Kanesatake the right to appoint
its own judges, once there is an agreement on the relationship
between these judges and the Quebec justice system. The
agreement provides as well that laws passed by Kanesatake will
have to be harmonized with those in force in the neighbouring
village of Oka.
However, the harmonization process is reciprocal, according to
the bill. It depends on the good will and co-operation of the
two communities. A framework is established for discussions
between native and non-native officials.
In order to understand the need for harmonization, it is vital
to know that all sections of Kanesatake land are not contiguous
and that 57 parcels of the lands of the Mohawks of Kanesatake
are located in the town of Oka.
Another important aspect of the agreement is the fact that it
was concluded without prejudice to any right of the Mohawks of
Kanesatake, be they ancestral or treaty rights and without
prejudice to the land claims pertaining to the Seigneurie du Lac
des Deux-Montagnes.
These issues are still under negotiation between the Government
of Canada and Kanesatake. This is not a general agreement on
self-government or a treaty. It is a unique agreement on land
management that reflects the circumstances of Kanesatake.
Despite some opposition from June 21, 2000 until the eve of the
ratification vote, on October 14, 2000, the band council led an
intensive information and consultation campaign. It held several
public meetings and organized over 50 workshops to explain
the scope and impact of the agreement. The ratification vote on
the land governance agreement took place in Kanesatake on
October 14, 2000.
Community members were also asked to approve a code on the
exercise of government powers. This code provides that the
Mohawk Council of Kanesatake will act as a transparent and
responsible government, in the best interests of the community.
It also sets the rules of procedure and conduct that relate to
the accountability of governing authorities and to conflicts of
interests. The vote was very close with 239 voting in favour of
the agreement and 237 voting against it.
As Grand Chief James Gabriel pointed out, such a close result
was indicative of the energetic debate in his community, without
calling into question the legitimacy of the agreement. He said
that “It is always healthy to have differing views. Let us not
forget that we have traditionalists on our territory who do not
participate in these votes, because they do not think they are
legitimate. I truly respect their choice”.
On December 14, 2000, the result of the ratification vote was
confirmed through a recount by the Hon. Lawrence Poitras, a
retired chief justice of the Quebec superior court, who
conducted the independent judicial control of the ratification
vote and procedure. The judge concluded that these aspects of
the process had been perfectly proper.
The historic agreement was therefore officially signed in Ottawa
on December 21, 2000 and must now be approved by an act of the
Parliament of Canada in order to take effect, which is what we
are aiming for today.
It is important to recall that these are federal lands and that,
for this reason, tripartite discussions involving Quebec, Ottawa
and Kanesatake were not held. However, I am pleased to point
out that the government of Quebec was consulted and informed
about the agreement and gave its general approval, as did the
municipality of Oka.
The Bloc Quebecois also examined the proposed legislation
carefully and heartily endorse it. We support this initiative
and are proud to share in what is an historic moment for the
Kanesatake Mohawk nation, which will now have the necessary
tools for its own development.
In closing, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to point out that it
supports the recommendations of the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples. These call for an approach based on the
concept of self-government, which acknowledges aboriginal
governments as a level of government with jurisdiction over
questions concerning governance and the welfare of their people.
In addition, the entire royal commission report was based on
recognition of the aboriginal peoples as an independent nation
occupying a unique place within Canada.
The agreement respecting Kanesatake governance fully reflects
the spirit of the conclusions and recommendations of the
Erasmus-Dussault report, which is why we are pleased to
facilitate speedy passage of the bill.
1030
[English]
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to join in the debate on behalf of our party's critic,
the member for Winnipeg North Centre, who spoke at length on the
bill. I will at points reflect upon the comments he previously
made.
I will emphasize exactly what the bill is about, because unless
one happened to be part of the standing committee on aboriginal
affairs or was somehow involved with the Senate discussions, we
in the House really did not hear a whole lot about it. This is
really somewhat of a shame considering its major achievement. It
is truly a major achievement in Canadian history to see this type
of bill come forth. It reflects the true interests of the people
of Kanesatake and of process taken, which started some time ago.
At this time I want to congratulate Chief James Gabriel and the
people of Kanesatake for their efforts and their work. I also
want to congratulate all those who made a point of taking part in
the voting process. We heard the numbers earlier. If I heard
them correctly, I think it was 237 to 239, although I may be a
little off. However, when I heard them I was really quite
impressed because it shows that the people did care.
At this point I want to comment on a problem I think we have
within the House, which relates to the situation of voting, and
sometimes the misunderstandings we have in the communities. It is
inherent upon us as a House, when we are talking about issues
that pertain to specific first nations communities, to
acknowledge that all people in those communities do not have the
same opportunity of education and economic opportunities. As a
result they cannot always get to Ottawa or to other places to get
their points across. It is inherent on us, when dealing with a
specific first nation, to make the point of taking our
hearings into those communities. That is what we should do as a
parliament.
I did not go through this process in my community on an issue
that pertained to specific bands in my riding, which was northern
flood agreement. With all my heart and soul I wanted us to hold
those meetings there or at least have our hearings videotaped, so
the people in the communities could be a part of the process.
What is more important is that we hold the meetings so that all
people in the communities have the opportunity to come out, voice
their opinions and to make an informed decision.
When we have a vote of 237 to 239, we should never have any
question about someone not having all the information. We should
recognize the vote was taken and the decision was made. I do not
always like the outcome of elections, especially close calls. If
I had my druthers, the mix in the House would be a whole lot
different. The bottom line is I accept the process of having
elections. A vote takes place and one accepts the result. One
can fight against the parts disagreed with and support those that
are good for the people.
Recognizing that the vote indicated the support of the chief,
the council and those people who wanted that process in
Kanesatake, we should also support it. As a parliament we need
to support the bill. I would love to see it supported
unanimously in the House as a show of acknowledgement to first
nations people that we respect their right of decision.
As indicated, the bill will not put the first nation of
Kanesatake under the Indian Act. The people of Kanesatake will
have a separate process in place for their community. Because of
their unique position, they have had some opportunities that
other first nations have not. They have had the opportunity of
not being totally under the thumb of the government. This has
given them an opportunity to expand in areas where other first
nations people could not. We see that independence in their
decision making.
1035
One of the areas noted, which was instrumental in putting the
extra push to the bill, was the issue of the land use. The
people in that area did not have an opportunity to make a
decision on what they wanted for their area. That was the
additional incentive to push for this. They wanted control over
what was happening with their land, while recognizing that the
environmental laws of Canada would still fall into place and be
in force in Kanesatake. However, they would be able to use the
land as they wished.
At this point I would like to tie the issue of wanting control
over their land to what happens with the land in Canada, if we do
not make sure that we stay in control of it under free trade
agreements. A very instrumental first nations leader from, I
believe, Manitoba made a comment one time that trade agreements
would make Indians of us all because we would not have control of
it.
The fight that the people of Kanesatake have had has just
emphasized that even more for me. They did not have control over
their land and needed to make sure they put rules and legislation
in place that would give them that right. I want us to pay
attention to the words of that aboriginal leader who said trade
agreements would make Indians of everybody and that we should see
the struggles that they had. That will be us in the years to
come if we do not make sure we as Canadians have control over our
land.
I would like to impress upon the minister that point, but
certainly more on his government. I would like to commend him
for the process on the bill and encourage him.
When he was making his comments he spoke of his new initiative
with the first nations peoples. He and I both know that the
first nations leaders in Manitoba are not acceptant of his
process. I would like to emphasize to him that they have good
reason not to be acceptant. This process was dumped on them with
the suggestion that this was the way we were going to do it, once
again without the involvement of those first nations leaders.
They were not happy about that.
Again, I do not like the outcomes of all the elections
sometimes, but the bottom line is I accept that in first nations
communities, even though there is unhappiness sometimes over the
outcomes of them, and I impress this upon my colleagues from the
Alliance, the point is chiefs in council for the most part are
elected. When they are elected we must give them the right to
make the decisions for their people. If the chiefs in Manitoba
are not acceptant of the process, then I suggest to the minister
that he needs to consult with them to make sure the process which
will take place is one that they are okay with. I do not think
that has happened.
I have nothing but good results in my discussions with the
chiefs in Manitoba, certainly with the first nations communities
in my riding. There is good and bad, we do not always agree but
that is life. I have my thoughts and they have theirs, but they
represent the people of their first nations. I acknowledge that
and so should the minister. He needs to acknowledge that this is
the position they want to take. It is their first nations
communities and he really needs to take that into consideration.
I will not go into all the intricacies of the bill. That has
been done a number of times. I do not think we want to delay the
process. I know the people in Kanesatake want the bill to go
through. We in the New Democratic Party want it to go through.
We support it and I would encourage all my colleagues in the
House to show respect for the first nations people who have made
the decision on the process they want to take. Members should
acknowledge that with a show of respect by supporting the
decision they have made.
1040
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Churchill spoke about a very important aspect of
the bill, that was the closeness of the vote. She enlarged on
that somewhat and discussed the fact that although the vote was
very close, it was a democratic vote. I have heard comments from
some of the speakers which cast aspersions on that.
My question concerns a vote that was taken in her riding on the
northern flood agreement where a number of communities were very
close to being in a tie situation. There were a number of
aspersions cast that the process may not have been correct, but
at the end of the day the vote was accepted. The fact remains
that we have to accept the votes for what they are, regardless if
they are close or one person away from deciding a tying vote.
Could the member enlarge on what happened with the northern
flood agreement and on the fact that the vote was close but ended
in an agreement? There may be people, and the member may be one,
who were not in complete agreement with everything that went on,
but that at the end of the day we moved forward.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, in the case of my
riding, it was not an extremely close vote like the Kanesatake
vote. It was the questioning as to the process, directed under
Indian affairs. A lot of the problems over the years have been
because it has been directed by Indian affairs.
We have had years and years of policy and implementation of
different processes under Indian affairs. As a result, the first
nations people have not had the same opportunities we have.
Non-aboriginal people may not vote throughout Canada, but none of
them can ever argue with the fact that they have opportunities
for education, economic opportunities and to be with their
families, in most cases year after year. They do not have the
history of first nations people who have been taken from their
homes or children have been taken away from their parents.
First nations people have not had the opportunity to evolve as a
society and as a nation the same way we have because they were
under the thumb of the government. They lost a lot of years of
evolving through what I consider a democratic process.
I firmly hope that each and every first nation will accept, over
time, the democratic system in Canada, because quite frankly I am
happy with it. I would suggest that something like proportional
representation is a better route to go within our election
system. I would prefer if we are going to have a Senate that it
be elected, but the bottom line is we can make those decisions.
We need to give first nations people the very same opportunities
we have all had. We need to give them the opportunity to fail as
well as succeed. If they happen to fail in some instances, it
does not mean the process is wrong and it does not mean they do
not have the right. They just need the same time and the same
opportunities we have had to evolve through a process of forming
their society as they would like to form it.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
was intrigued with the answer the member just gave my colleague.
She mentioned two things.
First, she talked about closeness of vote, that a majority is a
majority. However, as the member knows, there are times when we
say a majority is not a majority. The people of Quebec certainly
would argue that, and there are other issues we discover within
leadership races and major decisions, where people look at the
majority in relation to the problem. I wonder if there is
something there that should be looked at.
Second, she mentioned concerns with the Department of Indian
and Northern Affairs and the Indian Act. Yesterday
the committee heard the legal advisor to the national chief, Mr.
Mercredi, express devout concerns about how aboriginals were being
treated, and rightly so, regarding a lack of consultation and
involvement. I would appreciate the member's views on those
issues.
1045
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I will take this
opportunity to say with pride that Mr. Mercredi is originally
from my riding. His parents live in my riding. As well, the
former grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil
Fontaine, was from my riding. I mention that to give some
indication of the type of riding I have the pleasure of
representing.
Residents of my riding have the benefit of knowing that two of
their members have gone on to represent the first nations people
of Canada. As a result, I think the people of the riding have
benefited.
With regard to the treatment of first nations people, there is
no question that it has been absolutely terrible. I grew up in
Lebret, a very tiny community in southern Saskatchewan, which had
a residential school. In my years of living there I hardly
knew a child who attended that school because it was in a
segregated area. A lot of aboriginal people lived in the
community where I grew up, so I believe I have an understanding
of the situations that first nations people live through.
My father actually managed one of what were called the Indian
and Metis farms in Saskatchewan. I had the opportunity to see
the differences when first nations people are given the
opportunity for employment, the differences that can take place
in their lives and their children's lives for years to come.
A number of families that had the opportunity to work on farms
or at other jobs and to be paid fairly and to live in adequate
housing have gone on to see their children educated. Many of
those children have become productive people within our country.
We have failed in a lot of areas. Those farms were not the
norm. There was the odd one here and there throughout Canada,
though I only know of the ones in Saskatchewan. We have failed
to give economic opportunities to first nations people. It is
very hard to do that on the type of reserve system we have. It
will take a lot of years to change that system but those changes
will never happen if we do not put enough dollars into proper
housing, into proper sewers and water and into schools that are
big enough to hold the number of students in them.
A lot of schools in my riding were built to hold only so many
children and they probably need room for another hundred. Those
children do not have the opportunity of going five miles down the
road to the next farming community to go to another school. Most
of the reserves are off somewhere so they try to cram people into
the schools in order to give them the educational opportunities.
The government must be seriously committed to following through
on the recommendations of the royal commission on aboriginal
peoples and to putting enough dollars into housing. Anybody who
thinks for one second that first nations people do not look after
their housing should know that they get the bare minimum standard
of housing. Their houses in no way compare to the houses we have
in our communities. Their houses would never have been allowed
in our communities.
The communities do not have adequate firefighting services and
the firefighting services it does have is paid for through its
global budgets. When I hear Alliance members talk about wasted
dollars in first nations communities, I would suggest to them
that if their municipalities had to do everything aboriginal
communities had to do with their dollars they would be here
screaming and hollering too.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, before I
speak directly to the Kanesatake interim land base governance
act, a bill which came from the Senate to this House, I will make
a quick reference to the words of the member for Churchill. I
have always enjoyed listening to the member speak. She brings a
certain clarity and a personal reference to the subject that a
lot of other members simply do not bring.
1050
Although I have never been in complete agreement with everything
the member says, she speaks from her heart and with a wide
knowledge of the subject. That knowledge could certainly be
listened to by a lot of members in the House and influence a lot
of party policies that are dedicated and manufactured in the
House.
The Mohawks of Kanesatake, also known as Oka, live on a tract of
land roughly 50 kilometres west of Montreal. On these lands
which have been set aside for the Mohawks but do not constitute a
reserve live both aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. It is
extremely important when discussing the bill to understand that
we are not in any way, shape or form talking about an Indian
reserve.
In 1990 the problem of unresolved aboriginal land claims erupted
in the Oka crisis. The Mohawks erected barricades to block
roads. In response to a request from the Quebec government, the
federal government sent Canadian forces to help resolve the
confrontation. In the conflict that ensued one Quebec officer
died.
We cannot say those words lightly in the House. The reason I
say them at all is to give a little history lesson to everyone in
this place. We need to look back at where we were in 1990 and
come ahead to where we are today. This may not be the perfect
agreement. It may not suit every member of the House. However
the reality is that light years from where we were in 1990.
We are on the eve of signing an agreement so that we can step
forward into the reality of the 21st century. It is long
overdue. Over the past 10 years the Mohawk of Kanesatake have
worked with the Government of Canada to resolve questions and
grievances regarding land use.
In March 1991 the Mohawks and the federal government agreed on
an agenda for negotiations within the community of Kanesatake. I
must point out that since 1991 the Mohawks of Kanesatake have
switched from a traditional system to an elective democratic
system that includes off territory voters. They did so because
they felt that everyone who has an interest in Kanesatake should
be able to participate in the elections.
That being said, a lot of progress has been made over the past
10 years. In 1994 the memorandum of understanding over land
purchases was signed between the Mohawks and the federal
government. In 1997 the federal government made land purchases
in the name of Kanesatake, and the Mohawks established their own
police station.
On December 21, 2000, a new land governance agreement was signed
between the Kanesatake and the federal government. Bill S-24
represents the culmination of negotiations engaged in over the
past 10 years. The bill did not suddenly appear before us. The
bill has taken over a decade to go from where it was to where we
are today. The bill is a critical milestone for the community of
Kanesatake.
Bill S-24 would provide legal recognition of the land base for
the Mohawks and would include powers of law making, policing and
other services. The agreement with respect to Kanesatake
governance of the interim land base was ratified through a
legitimate democratic process by a majority, albeit a slim one,
239 to 237, but a majority nevertheless. An independent legal
review of the ratification process and recount of the vote
results, both conducted by a former chief justice of the Quebec
superior court, confirmed that the process was conducted in a
fair and open manner.
Bill S-24 would ensure that the Kanesatake Mohawk interim land
base constitutes lands reserved for the Indians pursuant to the
constitution but not as a reserve under the Indian Act.
Bill S-24 would also provide a framework for the exercise of
jurisdiction and establish principles for the harmonious use and
development of those lands.
Under the legislation the Mohawks of Kanesatake would have legal
capacity to acquire and hold property, enter into contracts,
borrow, expend and invest money, and be party to legal
proceedings.
1055
The Mohawks would also exercise power to make laws formerly made
at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. It must be
pointed out that laws made by the Mohawks of Kanesatake could not
be less stringent than municipal or provincial laws already in
existence.
These laws would affect health and qualify of life, protection
and management of fish and wildlife, disorderly conduct and
nuisance, prevention of trespass, residency, fire safety and fire
prevention, local works, zoning, waste management and public
sanitation, traffic regulation and the appointment of judges.
While violators of any of these laws would be punishable by the
Mohawk of Kanesatake, fines or imprisonment terms may not exceed
limits established in subsection 787(1) of the Criminal Code of
Canada. Subclause 8(1) of the bill specifies that a Kanesatake
Mohawk is not governed by the Indian Act.
Before the Mohawk of Kanesatake can enact the legal powers
accorded to them by Bill S-24, they must adopt a land governance
code that sets out the law of the land. The code shall establish
the rule of law, land use rules, conflict of interest rules,
rights of appeal and redress, and procedures to amend the code.
Furthermore a land use plan must precede any form of commercial
or industrial activity. Storage or transportation of hazardous
materials or waste disposal can happen.
Bill S-24 stipulates that Kanesatake Mohawk land should be
consistent with federal standards and can exceed in strictness
provincial standards. It must be pointed out that although
environmental standards can exceed in strictness provincial
environmental standards, they must be equivalent to or exceed
standards already in place.
Before substantial land use practices can be changed, Bill S-24
establishes the process by which Kanesatake land use rules should
be harmonized with the land laws of the municipality of Oka. This
task will be an onerous one and is an onerous one, considering
that the entire land area affected by the bill and inhabited by
the Mohawk comprises many small parcels of land occupied by both
aboriginal and non-aboriginal residents.
Bill S-24 addresses the issue of governance but does not include
debate regarding first nation treaty rights or other outstanding
disputes and grievances. Neither does it represent settlement of
a land claim.
In conclusion, the PC Party supports the legislation. Bill S-24
has been 10 years in the making and there has been appropriate
consultation with the third parties involved. We would have
appreciated more time to look at the bill and have more witnesses
appear before committee. However sending legislation through the
Senate first has become commonplace for the Liberal government.
The House should not be here to simply rubber stamp a piece of
legislation but should be actively involved in it.
I will clarify this point because I do not want my colleagues in
the Senate to think I do not approve of legislation coming from
the Senate. That is what makes the Senate a more appropriate
vehicle of governance in Canada and gives it legitimacy. We
should be seeking more legitimacy for the Senate.
That being said, we are supportive of the will of the Mohawk of
Kanesatake and the extensive consultations that have been carried
out with the community of Kanesatake. As critic for Indian
affairs and northern development in the last parliament, the 36th
parliament—
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has a bit of a dilemma.
Does the member for South Shore want to wrap it all up within a
minute or would he prefer to conclude his remarks after question
period?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude after
question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
1100
[English]
THIRD WORLD EYE CARE SOCIETY
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently I attended the Third World Eye Care Society's sixth
fundraising ball in Vancouver. This group collects old
eyeglasses and distributes them with eye exams to people in
developing countries.
The group has provided its services all around the world helping
people to see better. In fact, last year in Grenada the society
examined over 1,100 patients and performed 29 surgeries over the
course of five days.
I want to congratulate the members of the Third World Eye Care
Society for their dedication, compassion and assistance to people
in third world countries who need eye care.
* * *
CANADIAN DOLLAR
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the value of the Canadian dollar compared to the U.S.
dollar has dropped approximately 25% since the Liberals came to
power. The implications of this fact are important.
First, it creates an attitude of complacency on the part of
Canadian exporters. Due to the lower Canadian dollar, Canadian
exporters observe that they can easily compete with a similar
product produced in the U.S. without maximizing efficiencies of
operation. Canadian workers are lulled into a false sense of
security that their jobs will be safe.
Second, the lower Canadian dollar means a higher cost of living
for Canadian consumers. That creates hardship, particularly for
Canadians on limited or fixed incomes, many of whom are seniors.
How much lower is the Liberal government willing to let the
dollar fall? The Liberal notion of Canada's competitiveness is a
fool's paradise that builds wealth on a false sense of security
and efficiency. It is time to stop the Canadian dollar from
falling further.
* * *
ECUADOR
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate four students who have been
chosen to participate in the humedica, Canada's Window to the
World Project, Ecuador 2001, which started on May 18, 2001.
The four students are Jeff Fadway, Kaitlin Kazmierowski, Austin
Pool and Allyn Norris who is a constituent in my riding.
This year's project involves two schools: Richview Collegiate
Institute and Humberside Collegiate Institute. The students will
be visiting an orphanage in Mindo, Ecuador.
The orphanage is operated by a charitable Ecuadorian foundation,
and humedica works in partnership with the foundation to meet
their physical and health needs.
This is an exciting opportunity for these students to reach out
and make a difference in their world and to create a link of
cultural understanding to hundreds of Canadian youth in their
home schools.
* * *
EMPLOYER SUPPORT AWARDS
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to salute 14 civilian employers from across
Canada who will be honoured this weekend by the Department of
National Defence for their support of the reserve force.
The Canadian Forces Liaison Council Employer Support Awards are
presented every two years, and this year's awards ceremony is the
fourth that the CFLC has sponsored since 1997.
There are about 30,000 primary reservists in Canada; most work
full or part time for civilian employers and some are students.
In order to train, attend courses or serve on operational
missions, these reservists need the support of their employers.
In turn, employers benefit from the work values, leadership
training and specific job skills that reservist employees bring
back to the civilian workplace.
I want to congratulate Cominco Trail Operations of Trail,
British Columbia for being the most supportive employer in
Canada. I would also like to salute all those employers who won
awards for most supportive employer in their respective provinces
or for their support in specific operations. All of these
employers were nominated by reservists who proudly serve this
great country.
* * *
ONTARIO TECHNICAL SKILLS DESIGN COMPETITION
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Peter Miljanovic and Neil Hunt, from Anderson High School in my
riding of Whitby—Ajax, recently won gold at the Ontario
Technical Skills Design Competition.
Fifteen teams from secondary schools across Ontario competed in
developing a website within a short five hour time period. They
had to design story boards and their entire site plan first, then
interview participants and take digital pictures. After their
site was fully completed and met all the criteria, they had to
present to a panel of five judges. The judges viewed their site
on several computers with various resolutions and web browsers.
Compared to the other teams, Peter and Neil had the most
obsolete computer hardware and software. They were a little
intimidated by the other competitors but that did not stop them
from proving that they possessed the skills required to make an
outstanding website in a limited timeframe.
1105
By winning the gold medal, Peter Miljanovic and Neil Hunt have
gone on to represent Ontario at the National Internet Website
Design Competition in Edmonton this weekend.
I take this opportunity to congratulate Peter and Neil on their
accomplishment.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Indian residential schools are a
national tragedy. The government has refused to accept its
responsibility for the plight of those individuals who suffered
years of abuse while in the legal custody of the government.
A recent ruling by a Saskatchewan judge stated that it was the
federal government and not the churches that must settle the
lawsuits. The government is and always has been the legal
guardian of all those students.
Today the Deputy Prime Minister will meet with church leaders.
It was the government, not the churches, that dragged the
churches into the ongoing lawsuits as third party defendants.
Some of the churches will soon go bankrupt if the government does
not take some immediate action.
The government has dragged this on far too long. While former
students try to rebuild their lives, lawyers are rebuilding their
bank accounts by dragging out this whole process.
I plead with the government to do the right thing and settle
these claims. It will do the right thing by not forcing churches
into bankruptcy and by offering the former students the healing
and reconciliation they are crying out for.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ECONOMY
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the economic
news is good for Canada.
We have learned that growth in the last quarter was 2.5%. This
is close to twice the figure for the United States. Our GDP
increased in March as well.
This good news follows on the update announced by the Minister
of Finance. This year there will be $17 billion more available
to stimulate our economy. Among other things, we have reduced
the corporate tax rate by one point, which will help give our
businesses a competitive edge.
Despite the worldwide downturn, Canada is still enjoying the
longest growth period since the 1960s.
Judge for yourself: more than 22 growth quarters in a row, more
than 40% of our GDP composed of exports.
The state of the Canadian economy presents excellent prospects
for the future.
* * *
ACADÉMIE LES ESTACADES
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
share with you news of the successful performance of a group of
92 young musicians from the academics and music program of the
Académie Les Estacades, of Cap-de-la-Madeleine, at a music festival
held in New York City on May 5.
First places, and a gold medal, were won by the academy's string
orchestra, symphony orchestra and brass and reed bands i and ii.
The mark of 97% awarded to the string ensemble was the highest
mark ever recorded at this competition. In addition, the
school's stage band also came first and was awarded a silver
medal.
My particular congratulations to oboist Marjorie Tremblay, who
was chosen best soloist, all categories.
Incidentally, the Académie les Estacades was up against some 40
musical ensembles from 13 American colleges.
I am proud to congratulate all these young musicians and their
teachers for this excellent—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Erie—Lincoln.
* * *
[English]
BOATING SAFETY
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
past Victoria Day long weekend marked the traditional opening of
a great Canadian ritual. It marked the start of the cottage and
boating season.
An estimated eight million Canadians will take to our lakes,
rivers and oceans this summer. Whether they are seeking peace
and solitude or fast paced action and fun, it is important that
all Canadians who take to the water do so in a safe and
responsible manner.
I remind all Canadians that all operators of personal watercraft
must be at least 16 years of age, regardless of supervision. I
also encourage all Canadians to take an accredited safe boating
course, wear well-fitted Canadian approved life jackets and
understand the consequences of drinking and boating.
Following these simple rules will help us continue to reduce the
number of boating fatalities and injuries that occur each year.
* * *
CEDAR LODGE RESTORATION RESORT
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on June 16, Cedar Lodge Restoration Resort will be
celebrating its fourth anniversary.
Cedar Lodge is a 44,000 square foot hotel and conference
facility overlooking Blackstrap Lake, Saskatchewan. Although it
is mostly known for its conference centre, Cedar Lodge has much
more to offer.
Suzanne Claire, owner and operator, has committed herself to
serving those in her community who are in need. Her staff, who
are all volunteers, have a devotion to others to provide
self-restoration and community outreach programs.
1110
The value that Cedar Lodge fulfills in self-restoration include
experienced staff and counsellors offering spiritual guidance and
ongoing daily workshops. These services include stress
management, defeating depression, addiction management and, most
important, a surrounding of peace and tranquillity.
This project that Ms. Claire has initiated is self-reliant. With
absolutely no funding from any level of government, she has made
this self-healing centre a success through the generosity of the
community and also through her strong faith.
* * *
CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE IN WOMEN'S HEALTH
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Health recently announced that Health Canada will
contribute an additional $1.7 million over the next year to the
national Centres of Excellence for Women's Health.
There are five of these centres across Canada: in Halifax,
Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. The centres use a
multidisciplinary approach to address quality care in the health
system, health protection, aboriginal women's health and rural
women's health.
Since their establishment in 1995, the centres have played a
critical role in more than 250 research projects.
I salute the world renowned work done by the Centres of
Excellence in Women's Health and I look forward to the new
research that will be done as a result of this funding.
* * *
LABOUR
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Retail
Council of Canada gives a retailer of the year award but we
should consider a sweatshop retailer of the year award. There is
no shortage of worthy candidates from which to choose.
Nominations could consider the Disney Corporation which has
sweatshops in China that force women to work seven days a week,
16 hours a day for the princely sum of $90 a month.
We could consider Walmart which manufacturers its Kathy-Lee
products in southern China where workers are reportedly locked up
for all but 60 minutes a day, work 90 hours a week and then
charged most of those wages for room and board.
This year's sweatshop retailer of the year award goes to
Reitman's stores which continues to import huge amounts of
clothing from Burma in spite of the Canadian government policy
asking businesses to refrain from trading with that country
because its brutal military regime uses profits from the textile
industry to finance the repression of its citizens.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL CHILDREN'S DAY
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, June 2 is
National Children's Day. I salute the children of Quebec,
Canada and the entire planet and want them to know how important
they are to us.
It is a shame and a scandal to see that despite surpluses of
close to $100 billion over the next four years, one child in five
will continue to live in poverty in Canada.
A campaign in support of children's rights “Say Yes for
Children” is currently getting started around the world.
It is an international campaign intended to encourage people
from all over to make a commitment to improve the living
conditions and well-being of young people.
I invite parliamentarians and the public to say yes for children
by signing the virtual petition at UNICEF's website.
Changing the world for children and doing it with them is a
commitment that cannot be broken.
* * *
QUEBEC MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to criticize the remarks made yesterday in
the Quebec national assembly by the member for Joliette, Guy
Chevrette, against the member for Lafontaine, Jean-Claude Gobé.
By calling him a “bloody Frenchman” and carrying on insulting
him in the most offensive manner possible, Guy Chevrette has
shown himself once again to be ill-mannered, impulsive and a worn
out politician.
For the past 15 years, Mr. Gobé has legitimately represented the
people of Lafontaine, a riding that includes part of the federal
riding I represent.
With his racist remarks and insults, Guy Chevrette represents
neither Quebecers nor, I hope, his political party. This man
showered me with insults when I sat at the national assembly and
since then.
Chevrette is worn out, finished, kept in office by a certain
type of press to which he feeds his twaddle. Mr. Gobé has
represented Quebec with dignity on several international
missions to francophone countries and has my full support and
that of my colleagues, especially the member for Brossard—La
Prairie, under these unfortunate and unacceptable circumstances.
* * *
[English]
RCMP
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to commend RCMP Constable Jodeen Cassidy and Corporal
Al Ramey for their successful efforts to locate a 19 year old
accident victim who spent a horrible eight days trapped at the
bottom of a deep ravine in a badly wrecked car.
Constable Cassidy piloted her RCMP helicopter on a determined
and persistent mission until she located the crash. Corporal
Ramey volunteered as a spotter and between the two of them,
surely saved the life of Joe Spring.
These two RCMP officers went above and beyond the call of duty
and we commend them wholeheartedly. We all wish young Joe Spring
a speedy recovery and we again thank Constable Jodeen Cassidy and
Corporal Ramey for their extraordinary efforts in this lifesaving
rescue.
* * *
1115
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our government's sound economic planning is based on
careful consideration of economic indicators like GDP and
unemployment rates.
However these indicators alone are limited in their ability to
assess our progress toward larger goals of environmental
sustainability and health. That is why we strongly support the
national round table on the environment and the economy and
Statistics Canada in their development of environmental
indicators.
[Translation]
The indicators will enable us to better establish a database to
help us with our economic and environmental decisions.
[English]
As the finance minister has said, the existence of indicators
compels decisions. These indicators will help us ensure that our
children grow up in communities that offer clean air and water,
are free of toxic chemicals and are open, natural spaces.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the military says that it needs 35 helicopters to undertake its
duties. How many will it get?
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is
committed to the acquisition of 28 new shipborne maritime
helicopters.
Through a competitive process that is fair, open and
transparent, we will get the very best product at the very best
price for the men and women of the Canadian forces to serve the
country in the way we are committed to and the way they are
committed to.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting to note that the military asked for 35
and is now getting 28.
It also asked for helicopters that would allow them to be in the
air for more than three hours. How long will these helicopters
be able to be in the air under adverse circumstances?
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the requirements for
this helicopter were written by Canadian military people, not by
politicians.
The military is getting exactly what it wanted. Even in letters
to the editor yesterday and today, vice-admirals have said these
are the specifications that they want, not the 1960s dinosaur
type tactics that the Reform Party is looking for.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that is a very interesting commentary. Military
advisers said they wanted 35 helicopters. They wanted
helicopters that could be the air for more than three hours.
They are getting neither.
How does the parliamentary secretary explain the fact that
political interference has intruded in what the military really
needs and what it really wants?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there has been no so-called political interference. The
military developed a statement of requirements. The government
accepted the statement of requirements. Under the Minister of
National Defence and the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services the procurement process is now under way.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, cold war, hot war, no war, what is
the difference when the chief of maritime staff says he cannot
meet his domestic needs? Referring to reduced Sea King
capability he says that it:
The end of the cold war is a poor reason to lower aircraft
standards. Why are we not raising standards for our military?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my understanding that the chief of maritime staff
made it perfectly clear in his testimony before the parliamentary
committee that “Canada's navy is more combat capable today than
it was a decade ago during the Persian war conflict”, and the
vice-admiral made it clear in his testimony that “the navy has
been provided the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate and
maintain combat capability”.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we now have a hat trick of Liberal
procurement screw-ups. There were shipping contracts given
without tender that now discourage shipping bidders.
A jeep-like vehicle contract went to a sole European bidder
because the government drove away Canadian competition.
1120
After 25 years a helicopter contract is to be given for a
replacement with only 75% of the capability of 40 year old Sea
Kings. Why is the minister allowing Liberal politics to
manipulate serious military procurement?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's premise is totally wrong. We are
responding to the military's own statement of requirements.
I would think that a member of the Alliance Party is the last
person in the world to talk about “screw-ups” unless he is
looking at himself in the mirror.
* * *
[Translation]
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after more
than two years, we finally got documents on the unity operation
led by the Privy Council.
The purpose of the operation was to orchestrate the federal
government's actions during the 1995 referendum held in Quebec.
Several pages of the document were censored under the pretext
that they could adversely affect federal-provincial relations.
Could the President of the Privy Council tell us how a document
that was originally supposed to promote Canadian unity can now
adversely affect federal-provincial relations?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members opposite should have a more
consistent approach.
Every now and then they complain; they claim that they do not
have access to documents under the Access to Information Act.
This is what they say. Of course that is rarely the case. In
fact, it is never the case.
Today, they are claiming that they complied with the Access to
Information Act, but did not have access to the documents that
they wanted. There is something wrong with these questions.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the leader
of the government clearly did not understand the question and
this is why it is addressed to the President of the Privy
Council.
I am asking the President of the Privy Council, who boasts about
clarity and transparency, to tell us: Is the document so bad and
so much against Quebec that it still cannot be released six
years later?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government House leader replied as regards
compliance with the act. We do comply with the act.
The facts speak for themselves. The Government of Canada does
not in any way act against Quebec. The Government of Canada
protects the right of Quebecers to be full fledged Canadians and
to fully enjoy the benefits provided by their great country.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
several passages in the documents we obtained after two years of
waiting were blanked out in accordance with section 14 of the
Access to Information Act, which provides as follows:
The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any
record requested under this Act that contains information the
disclosure of which could—be injurious to the conduct by the
Government of Canada of federal-provincial affairs.
How could these censored passages have been so controversial
that they could have been injurious to the conduct of
federal-provincial affairs by the Government of Canada?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, we see how ridiculous
the question is. We are being accused of obeying the law. We
plead guilty. We always obey the law.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
if it is true that the disclosure of these documents would have
seriously damaged relations between Quebec and the federal
government, will he explain how it is that the federal
government acted contrary to its own interpretation of the
legislation by faxing complete copies of these documents to the
Liberal Party of Quebec just a few days before the 1995
referendum campaign?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government complied with the legislation, and
the same type of legislation applies, as far as I know, to the
executive council of the government of Quebec. The member is
entirely free to ask the government of Quebec for any
information he wishes.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It has to do with
the study released today by the David Suzuki Foundation entitled
“Fuelling the Climate Crisis”, which claims that the
continental energy plan, and particularly the development of the
Alberta tar sands, will raise Canada's greenhouse gas emissions
to 44% above the commitment to the Kyoto protocol.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister commit his government to an
environmental study of the greenhouse gas emission consequences
of the development of the Alberta tar sands before any further
commitment is made to that development?
1125
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it would have been appropriate for the hon. member to
give me notice of this question. I have not seen the Suzuki
report. We will certainly look into it. I reiterate that the
government has said that it intends to meet its Kyoto commitments
and that continues to be the case.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I could not have given him notice because the study only
came out today, but the question really is whether the government
is committed to an environmental study of the Alberta tar sands
development.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister again about energy. I
raised it in the House the other day with respect to the purchase
of Gulf by American interests. I know that the Deputy Prime
Minister has had an interest in these issues in the past. We know
that American ownership is lower than it used to be, but this
could be the beginning of a trend upward.
I want to know from the government if there is a level of
foreign ownership at which the government would begin to be
concerned and begin to act.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to the Alberta tar sands, their development
involves provincial jurisdiction. There may be a federal issue.
Certainly we will apply the relevant laws in co-operation with
our Alberta counterparts.
With respect to foreign ownership, there are laws on the books.
They will be followed.
* * *
ENERGY INDUSTRY
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. Premier Klein of
Alberta originally indicated that his provincial government might
interfere with the transportation of oil and gas from the north
through Alberta to United States markets.
He has since said that the federal government holds the hammer
when it comes to such issues. Will the Deputy Prime Minister
clarify whether or not the federal government has such
jurisdiction?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member might be well advised to seek legal opinions
from the appropriate sources, but what I can say to him is that
the federal government is not interested in stopping the sale of
energy resources.
The federal government is interested in working with our
provincial partners, which have direct jurisdiction over natural
resources, together with our international partners, including
the major markets in the United States, to see that Canadians and
Canada benefit the most that is possible from our natural
resource wealth.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the minister because I agree with him. I wish to ask him
if he is now prepared to exercise the same power to let
Newfoundland and Labrador electricity be transported through
Quebec to United States markets without Newfoundland being
charged exorbitant wheeling fees.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it always unnerves me slightly when opposition members
from any party agree with me.
On this one I would like to point out to the hon. member that
the federal government, since 1993, has been working very hard to
eliminate barriers to interprovincial trade, including in the
electricity market.
As increasingly there is an interest in finding a means for the
interprovincial sale of electricity such as arose, for example,
with needs that came about at the time of the ice storm, it is
incumbent on the provinces to resolve some of the barriers that
exist—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. Albert.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister told farmers in Winnipeg to
stop complaining because there is no crisis on farms. Let me say
to the House that the minister of agriculture cut $470 million
out of grants to farmers. There is a drought on the prairies.
There is no money to drill emergency wells to water cattle.
My question is for the Prime Minister. When will his government
recognize that there is a crisis on prairies farms and when will
it do something about it?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government wants to work with Canadians in every
part of our country. It has been working with farmers in the
west and in the rest of the country.
Proof of that is what the hon. member referred to, our close to
$500 million emergency aid program for farmers. I thank the hon.
member for mentioning that.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I said that was a cut of $470 million. The Deputy Prime
Minister talked about wanting to work with Canadians. The member
for Scarborough Southwest said “If you don't vote for me, I
don't work for you”. It seems to be that the Liberal government
is saying “If you don't elect Liberals, we will do nothing for
you”.
1130
Is this Liberal-type democracy where they say “If you don't
elect members of the Liberal Party, we will do nothing for you”,
or will they seriously do something for the drought on the
prairies?
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, beside the
$500 million that the hon. Deputy Prime Minister mentioned,
another $2.2 billion will go out in the next three years. Cheques
are going out now. Also we gave $240 million to Manitoba and
Saskatchewan.
On the particular question, there was no cut. It was
bookkeeping. He had the answer before. I suggest he look it up.
In fact, more money is going out this year than ever before in
the last seven years.
* * *
[Translation]
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister responsible for the Privy Council missed the point in
the question asked earlier.
The government of Quebec cannot be asked to distribute Operation
Unity documents when only the Liberal Party of Quebec has
obtained a copy. Even the Bloc Quebecois MPs have been refused
the entire document, under the pretext of section 14 of the
Access to Information Act.
Why has the minister made the decision to restrict distribution
of the full Operation Unity document to the Liberal Party of
Quebec and to no one else, thus violating his own legislation?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the questions seem to be changing.
What was said earlier was that we had obeyed the law, and we
were faulted for having done so. Now, five minutes later, we
are being accused of having done the opposite, in connection
with the same matter.
The Government of Canada obeys the law, as we do at all times
with all laws, including the Access to Information Act, the
Privacy Act and so on.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is missing the
point as well.
Under the pretext of section 14 of the Access to Information
Act, we were refused the full Operation Unity document. Under
the pretext of that law, of compliance with that law, we were
denied access to it, yet it was provided to the Liberal Party of
Quebec. Thus, they broke the federal law.
Could some light be cast on this and could the documents be tabled,
along with the others that have also been distributed solely to
the Liberal Party of Quebec, all the documents relating to
Operation Unity during the referendum campaign?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government made public what had
to be made public under the law and in compliance with the law.
Once again, the question seems to be drifting all over the map.
* * *
[English]
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday western premiers were united in their demand
that Ottawa give energy producing provinces a seat at the table
during the negotiations on the continental energy policy. They
stated that the provinces were the keepers, owners and guardians
of our natural resources.
The constitution is very clear on the subject. Natural
resources belong to the provinces. Will the minister recognize
that provinces are full partners and respect their demands?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, obviously western premiers asked to be full
participants in the international discussions related to energy.
However, referring to the table, which table? There is no table.
It is clear, as the premier of British Columbia said, that
Canada must speak with one voice. The Government of Canada will
make sure that everything we do about energy will be for the
benefit of all provinces, and indeed will include the premiers.
By the way, the Minister of Natural Resources is speaking with
the premier of Prince Edward Island today about that.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, there will be a negotiation. I guess the premiers and
the provinces would be more trusting of the federal government if
it had not betrayed them in ignoring the limits agreed to at the
Kyoto negotiations with the provinces. That is why they are
asking to be at the table this time. That is why they are
insisting on being at the table, because they were ignored last
time and betrayed.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to the western provinces
and the western premiers that they be at the negotiating table
when they meet with the Americans to hammer out a new energy
agreement?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend is starting off, as usual, on the wrong
premise. There is no table contemplated at which there would be
negotiations for a new continental energy agreement.
1135
We in Canada will be working on behalf of the entire country.
For this purpose we will be fully consulting with the provinces.
Each of us has our respective jurisdictions under the
constitution. These jurisdictions will be respected and at the
same time we will be working on behalf of all Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
last week the national assembly passed the law to establish the
Quebec parental leave program.
This law, passed unanimously, has the support of the unions,
young Quebec families and management. All that is lacking to
get the program going is to have the federal government agree to
sit down and negotiate with Quebec.
Is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs capable of making a
commitment on behalf of his government to begin negotiations
with the government of Quebec? Yes or no.
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have had a system
in place in Canada for several months now, which extends
parental leave up to a year for all Canadians.
This system was put in place responsibly to ensure that the
program remains affordable and sustainable.
I would also like to point out the fact that this is not
provincial government money. This money comes from the
contributions of workers and employers. In addition, we have
extended parental benefits for Canadians across the country,
including those of Quebec.
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the desire of Quebec to keep rehabilitation the priority for
young offenders, the need to readjust tax matters between Ottawa
and Quebec City and the Quebec parental leave program are all
the focus of consensus in Quebec, which largely transcends
partisan lines, since the future of Quebec is involved. The
federal government response to each consensus has been
consistent: no.
In refusing to negotiate, is the minister aware of the message
he is sending to Quebec families, stating clearly “If you want a
parental leave program that meets your needs, you have only one
option, become sovereign”?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we invite the government of Quebec to improve the
federal program. As good federalists, this is what we can and
should do. However, clearly, if they destroy the federation, we
will be unable to do this sort of thing.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadian patients are waiting
desperately for organ transplants, so much so that several of
them are paying thousands of dollars to Canadian businessmen to
go abroad and purchase organs from poor Chinese people.
My question is for the Minister of Health. Why has the
government dragged its heels, knowing full well that it has had
solutions on its lap for the last two years, including the health
committee's report? Why has it not implemented those solutions
to save Canadian lives?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the hon. member that
the practice that is reported in some newspapers today and to
which he is referring is totally reprehensible. Health Canada
absolutely condemns it.
The Canadian government has taken very concrete measures. We
invested over $20 million to deal with the issue of organ and
tissue transplants. Following the report, we set up a national
council on organ donations and transplants. We implemented all
the recommendations made in the report of the House committee
and I think that the situation will improve.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we do not want more reports. We do
not want more studies. We want action. These people are dying;
150 Canadians are dying every year and the number is increasing.
The government has mud on its face and it had better fix the
problem soon.
Again my question is for the minister. Why have they not
implemented the solutions in the health committee's report,
active solutions that will save lives? Will they ban people from
going abroad and purchasing organs from live donors?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's
impatience.
However, we are actually in the process of taking measures. The
parliamentary committee produced a report. That is the past. The
report's recommendations are being implemented. The council that
was recommended by the standing committee of the House has been
set up and the budgets are there. The situation will improve
with the co-operation of the provinces and of the medical staff
involved in this area.
* * *
1140
[English]
DISASTER RELIEF
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence. Recent
television news has shown some dramatic images coming from forest
fires in Alberta.
Has the Government of Canada received any requests for
assistance from the government of Alberta and, if so, what does
it plan to do about it?
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our hearts go out to
the people of Alberta who have suffered great personal losses due
to these fires. As a former firefighter, I wish to express my
admiration for firefighters across Canada who are battling these
blazes.
At this time the federal government has received no request for
assistance from the government of Alberta. We are nonetheless
ready to help, if asked, much like during the ice storm and the
Saguenay and Red River floods.
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Over the
last six years the Liberal government has cut $3.6 billion out of
rural economies through the elimination of the Crow benefit
alone. The Liberal legacy in rural Canada is crumbling roads,
farm closures and tainted water.
Europe and the U.S. care about their agricultural communities.
They invest in their infrastructure and value added economies.
Will the minister tell the House why the infrastructure program
is putting less funding back into rural Canada than the Liberal
government has cut?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
contrary to what the hon. member is saying, the new
Infrastructure Canada program includes a requirement for each
province to respect a certain percentage for rural areas.
We have reached agreements. Agreements have been signed and the
amount is based on the proportion of people living in rural
areas. This initiative shows that the federal government cares
about what is going on in the country's rural areas.
[English]
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has admitted publicly that the so-called green
infrastructure program is not sufficient. The green
infrastructure program requires cash strapped provinces and
municipalities to put up two-thirds of the money. As a result,
some provinces are not accessing the funds.
Will the government commit to an infrastructure program that is
not tied to matched funds from the municipalities and provinces?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the only obligation in the agreement we signed with the provinces
is that the federal government will pay one-third the cost of a
project.
Nothing in the agreement forbids a province from deciding to
take two-thirds of the cost. Nobody said that the municipality
should be able to afford one-third of the project. In some
remote areas of the country, especially, provinces are aware of
the situation and are ready to help their municipalities.
* * *
DAIRY INDUSTRY
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, dairy
farmers of Canada are challenging whether the Liberal government
really believes in protecting supply management. The federal
government has said time and time again that it supports supply
management, but actions speak louder than words.
In early May dairy farmers of Canada were informed that it was
the intention of the minister to stop issuing supplemental import
permits for the importation of cheese sticks only after September
1. Supply management does not work if we cannot control our own
borders.
Why is the government waiting until after September 1 to
actually protect the rights of the dairy farmers of Canada. It
is the cows that are supposed to be milked, not Canadian dairy
farmers.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual the member
is given to quite a bit of hyperbole in his comments.
We are talking about less than 1% of domestic cheese production.
For the last 20 years there has been absolutely no change in
government policy. When there is an increase in excess of the
quotas, it is for specific consumers requiring a specific
product.
The member has exaggerated the case. I want to tell him that
the minister recently raised this issue with Mr. Zoellick in the
United States.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Isle Haute
is a pristine island located in the Bay of Fundy. It is the home
of endangered species and is a real treasure. Recently it was
declared surplus by the coast guard and may be put up for sale.
Some months ago in the House we asked the Minister of the
Environment if he would declare this a wilderness preserve. Has
the minister made any progress on that request?
1145
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia's Isle Haute is
of major ecological significance for several species at risk in
colonial seabirds.
The federal government believes this property should be
preserved and protected. That is why Environment Canada is
working with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to ensure
this island is protected as a national wildlife area.
This designation will be a major step forward to protect and
recover species at risk in the region, such as the peregrine
falcon and several rare plant species.
This kind of co-operation and science based action is exactly
what is fundamental to the proposed species at risk legislation.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the psychological torment continues to worsen. Last night, John
Schneeberger, convicted pedophile, issued a letter full of
uncertainties. He said he would not have the kids come to the
jail, provided they live up to his conditions.
Can the minister not see that this law must be fixed so
convicted sex offenders cannot use kids for blackmail?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we share the member's concern for the well-being of the Dillman
children.
As the member opposite knows, the Minister of Justice does not
have the authority or the jurisdiction to interfere with an order
of the court. We remain committed to promoting positive outcomes
for children and their families following a separation or
divorce.
In the present situation variations in custody orders can be
made at any time. In the situation in question, the mother may
well be advised to do so or to appeal the existing order.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice tells a single mom to go to
Saskatchewan, to leave her job, to hire a lawyer and to develop
her own psychological evidence. Now we have a guy giving
ultimatums from prison.
Schneeberger has paid $50 in support in the last three years.
This sex offender is now setting the rules for access once he
gets out of prison, and he is eligible in November of this year.
We need Lisa's law to prevent the creation of psychological
child victims. Will the minister change it now for future kids
who might be forced into this situation?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I indicated, we remain committed to promoting positive
outcomes for children and their families following a separation
or divorce.
We are currently engaged with the provinces and territories in a
comprehensive review of the custody and access provisions under
the federal Divorce Act and provincial legislation. These public
consultations are currently under way.
Our shared goal is to create an effective family law system
across Canada that will promote a child centred approach by
focusing on children's needs and their best interests.
* * *
[Translation]
WATER RESOURCES
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Environment
Canada web site contains an invitation to tender with the
objective of putting a price on Canada's water resources.
It goes on to say that this price will apply in particular to
bulk water exports and to access to groundwater supplies.
Are we to understand from this that the government has moved
much further ahead than it lets on, and has even decided to
change its position as far as bulk water exports are concerned?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in our policy. We are
about to enact Bill C-6, which opposes bulk water sales. There
has been no change, and that is perfectly clear.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in connection
with Bill C-6, those who appeared before the committee expressed
general concern. The government has just sent a completely
contradictory message with this invitation to tender.
Is the government aware that, by asking that a price be put on
water, it is giving in to the arguments of those wishing to buy
our water, the Americans in particular, and is opening the door
to all manner of abuses?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, good environmental
policy is based on good science. I am reading from the actual
website.
It is an initiative to develop a methodology to value water so
that it can be applied to a broad range of environmental assets.
It is a case of developing indicators to assess environmental
value over the long term.
It is simply incorrect to infer that this in any way has to do
with bulk water. It is simply not so and we have not changed our
policy. The government remains opposed to bulk water removal.
* * *
1150
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, since 1988 the government has been studying safety
for uncontrolled rail crossings while 70 people have been killed
at such crossings in Saskatchewan alone.
When will the minister act on the request of the Saskatchewan
Safety Council to reflectorize those crossings?
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. I am sure he reads the estimates like all of us try to
do, but he is aware that Transport Canada invests substantial
millions of dollars each year in co-operation with municipalities
to enhance safety at crossings.
Transport Canada works with municipalities and their provincial
counterpart officials to ensure the most effective use of dollars
to deal with dangerous situations. Transport Canada is very
responsive in this regard. I encourage the member to examine the
estimates more carefully.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the industry is ready to move on this matter. It
has been wanting to move on it for quite some time.
The government has been studying the issue for 13 years. Now it
tells us it needs time to consult with the territories that have
very few crossings. Before more citizens are killed, will the
minister take immediate action to make uncontrolled rail
crossings safe?
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just yesterday I met with the
president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities
and he raised a number of very important issues relative to
Saskatchewan, but that one was not raised.
Nonetheless it is an important issue and I want to remind the
member that under the new Canada-provincial-territorial
infrastructure program it is possible, where priorities are set
by the province, for funds to be made available to deal with such
crossing problems.
* * *
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International
Cooperation. For some time Atlantic Canadians have felt far away
or removed from the Canadian International Development Agency.
Could the minister tell us what steps she has taken to make CIDA
more accessible to Canadians who live in the Atlantic provinces?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been consulting with Atlantic
Canadians for some time now, over the last year or so, with
respect to accessibility.
This is why two weeks ago I opened a regional office
headquartered in Moncton, New Brunswick, with staff also
responsible for Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward
Island.
This should facilitate greatly the access of Atlantic Canadians
to CIDA programming and break down some of the barriers that I
know have existed for some time in the past.
* * *
RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government has chosen a road of
destruction for many Canadian churches. The government has set
aside $2 billion, most of which falls into the pockets of lawyers
to take clients from former residential schools and then sue the
church organizations which provided the education. This is
breaking churches across Canada.
I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the
government continue this until every church in Canada that
provided these services is flat broke?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend is way off base. The government
recognizes the churches as valuable social institutions. We do
not want to see any church or church organization driven into
bankruptcy over any residential school issue.
However there is a matter of shared responsibility. We are
carrying out discussions with the churches and eventually with
the victims to bring about a fair resolution of the matter much
quicker than would otherwise be the case. We do not want to see
all the funds of either the government or the churches eaten up
in legal fees. I ask my hon. friend to work with me in this
regard and not try to politicize this issue.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it was not until Saskatchewan judge
Ted Malone said that the federal government has responsibility.
Now the Deputy Prime Minister says they will make a change.
To many of the churches in my constituency it is simply too
late. You have set about on a path that has destroyed this
completely. When will you announce your planned changes?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain
knows very well he must address his remarks to the Chair.
1155
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the native claimants in 70% of the cases are suing
directly both the churches and the federal government at the same
time.
My hon. friend is wrong when he said there has been some final
determination of responsibility. He mentioned one case. There
are other cases where the judges have said there is shared
responsibility.
I am working to see if we can resolve the matter outside the
lengthy and costly litigation process. Instead of trying to
unfairly politicize the matter, I think the hon. member should
work with me in doing something that is fair to the victims as
well as to the churches and the taxpayers.
* * *
[Translation]
PORT INFRASTRUCTURES
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans recently appeared before the
parliamentary committee. All committee members agree
that the funds allocated to the repair and maintenance of small
craft harbours are far from sufficient. In addition, the
minister has promised to look into providing financial support
for the authorities of ports that have been reassigned.
Does the minister intend to respond positively to the request by
the members of the committee to increase the maintenance and
repair budgets of small craft ports and does he intend to act
quickly on the possibility of providing financial support for
port authorities?
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans is reviewing the resources available to him and will be
making decisions on particular projects that he will be able to
initiate this year.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary
Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Spring seeding is done and the bills are now starting to come
due. I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain how the
Canada farm income program will benefit farmers with those bills.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to say that applications are being processed for all provinces.
Payments are also being issued as the processing is completed.
Cheques are continuing to go out. CFIP is a national program
that is cost shared with the provinces on a 60:40 basis. The
federal government pays 60%.
Federal and provincial governments have budgeted $2.2 billion
for the next three years. To date, 2,500 applications have been
received and I would encourage producers who are planning to
apply for this program to do so as soon as possible so that we
can continue to send out the cheques.
* * *
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister for International Trade held stakeholder
meetings this week with the Canadian forest sector. Regional
interests were given an opportunity to present their views on the
current softwood lumber dispute with the U.S.
Would the minister assure us that his position in favour of free
trade in lumber remains the government position?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if necessary, I can
reassure my hon. colleague that the Minister for International
Trade obviously speaks for the government on trade matters. As
my hon. colleague knows, the minister has championed repeatedly
for months now the call for free trade in softwood lumber.
The concern has been whether the stakeholders from coast to
coast to coast would continue to adhere to that position. As a
result of the excellent meeting the minister was involved in on
Wednesday in Ottawa, that consensus remains strong and the
minister remains the champion of free trade in softwood lumber.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
for International Trade said yesterday that the 70% increase in
imports of cheese sticks meant that there was a need on our
market. We are saying this increase in imports is totally
unjustified, because Canadian producers are telling us they can
meet the demand.
Will the minister understand that this 70% increase in imports
is artificial and fabricated, because the minister is not
respecting the negotiated quotas.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in
a response to a question, there seems to be a desire on the part
of opposition parties to grossly exaggerate the situation.
Canada's cheese industry is much stronger than they would have
us believe on the basis of these alarmist comments. The minister
said yesterday that if imports are occasionally allowed in excess
of the quotas it is because there are specific consumers who need
a specific product. That is the reason it has been allowed, and
no other.
* * *
1200
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister with respect to
the residential school question.
I know the Deputy Prime Minister has been working hard on this
file but I wonder if he could tell us, given the decision in
Saskatchewan, whether there is any intention on the part of the
government to tell the church leaders this afternoon or
subsequently that the government will not be naming the church as
a third party where it has not already been named? That at least
would be progress in the 30% of cases that the Deputy Prime
Minister referred to.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already pointed out that in 70% of the cases the
victims are suing both the federal government and the churches
directly. With respect to the remaining 30%, in about 16% of the
cases where there has been evidence that servants or employees of
churches have been involved, the federal government feels there
is an obligation to have this information before the court.
With respect to the remaining 15%, I do not think there has been
any determination as to whether there is possible church
involvement. I think we should concentrate on working to find a
settlement of this matter in a way that is fair to all parties.
* * *
TRADE
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this past week the government has
shown its true colours when it comes to international trade: full
support for Bombardier, writing off the grain farmers and
clueless about softwood lumber.
While the government is negotiating a continental energy plan
with the U.S., it has shown no willingness to link energy
discussions with other trade issues. When will the government
tell Americans that if they want to keep the lights on in
California they had better be prepared to accept our lumber
products?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is always appealing, at a very simplistic level, to
try to link issues. When one is smaller than one's neighbour,
one sometimes has to use intelligence as well.
I would encourage the hon. member to think about the fact that
while there may be a few things that we could link to our
benefit, there may be many more things that our neighbour could
link to its benefit. Therefore the Canadian government
consistently works with its U.S. neighbour in a constructive way
to try to deal with issues one by one and to resolve them in
everybody's interest.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Honourable P. Myron Kowalsky,
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 32(2) I have the pleasure to table, in both official
languages, two copies of the National Defence and Canadian Forces
Ombudsman's 2000-01 annual report.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during my business statement
yesterday, I neglected to inform the House that should the report
on the modernization committee be tabled later this day, it would
be my intention to seek the co-operation of other hon. members,
pursuant to discussions that House leader's have had, to see
whether there would be an interest in debating next Tuesday
evening the content of the report of the modernization committee.
I neglected to inform the House of that yesterday and I wanted
to amend the statement that I made.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 23rd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership
of the special committee on non-medical use of drugs.
Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present the 24th report
of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
regarding the membership of the Standing Joint Committee on
Scrutiny of Regulations.
1205
[Translation]
MODERNIZATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF PROCEDURES OF HOUSE OF
COMMONS
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the report of the Special Committee on the
Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of
Commons.
[English]
Like the notion of modernization itself, the House of Commons is
a work in progress. We hope that this report will be one
contribution to the evolution of our procedures and practice in
this 37th Parliament.
[Translation]
My committee colleagues decided to seek unanimity. While it was
relatively easy to agree on certain issues, we had to find
reasonable compromises on others. Some issues could not be
solved. Therefore, it will be up to other members, within other
frameworks, to continue the work that was begun here.
[English]
I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee for their
candour and the generous, open-minded spirit of co-operation they
brought to our work. I also want to thank their staff as well as
staff in procedural services for their technical assistance. I
want to recognize the contribution and the grace under pressure
of our Library of Parliament researcher, James Robertson, and to
thank the clerks of the committee, Audrey O'Brien and Diane
Diotte.
* * *
CANADIAN PEACEKEEPING SERVICE MEDAL ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-356, an act to amend the Canadian Peacekeeping
Service Medal Act (Book of Remembrance for peacekeepers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the enactment of the Canadian
Peacekeeping Service Medal Act requires that the minister
establish a book of remembrance for Canadians who have died
during an international peacekeeping mission.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PROTECTION OF PRIVACY (SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBERS) ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-357, an act to protect personal privacy by
restricting the use of social insurance numbers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this enactment establishes that no person
would be required to disclose his or her social insurance number
except where that disclosure is specifically required by law.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMPETITION ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-358, an act to amend the Competition Act
(vertically integrated gasoline suppliers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to address the
fact that vertically integrated gasoline suppliers that
manufacture more than a certain percentage should not be able to
act as suppliers as well as retailers at the same time.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
OIL AND GAS OMBUDSMAN ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-359, an act to establish the office of Oil and
Gas Ombudsman to investigate complaints relating to the business
practices of suppliers of oil or gas.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this enactment establishes the office of
the oil and gas ombudsman which would receive and investigate
complaints about the business practices of oil and gasoline
suppliers, as well as producers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-360, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax
credit for mental or physical impairment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill would allow people who suffer
from a physical or mental impairment that prevents them from
performing housekeeping activities to use the Income Tax Act for
the purpose of deductions for themselves or their families.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1210
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-361, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (to
provide for the deduction of funeral expenses).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill would allow a tax deduction of
up to $10,000 for a taxpayer who has paid the funeral expenses of
a person who has been buried in Canada. Taxpayers eligible for
the tax deduction include the taxpayer who has died, the legal
representative of the taxpayer who has died or any other taxpayer
who has paid the funeral expenses of the person who has died.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-362, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights
(right to education).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill would ensure that a child or a
youth have free and reasonable access to education without any
financial burden or other barriers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
DEFICIT PREVENTION ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-363, an act to Prevent Deficit Budgets.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the enactment of this bill would provide
that there must be no deficit either budgeted or incurred in any
fiscal year. It would require a contingency reserve to be
included in the estimates of expenditures for each year. If that
contingency reserve is not fully expended, the balance must be
used to pay down the debt.
Deficits caused by natural disasters, war or unusual collapse of
revenues are excluded by such special deficit but must be
recovered in the following three year budgets.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
DEPARTMENTAL INTERNAL AUDIT ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill-364, an act to require Crown corporations and
departments of government to have annual internal audits the
reports of which are to be submitted to the Auditor General of
Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this enactment would be to
require crown corporations and departments to complete an annual
internal audit, an audit report, using internal or external
auditors who ought to be qualified as prescribed by the auditor
general. The internal audit report is then to be submitted to
the head of the corporation or minister for the department and to
the auditor general. Either of them may require a further
examination of records. This would secure a greater involvement
and commitment by crown corporations and departments in their own
financial regulation and would assist the auditor general in the
timely fulfilment of the duties required under the Auditor
General Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-365, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights
(right of literacy).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the enactment to amend the Canadian Bill
of Rights would include the right of an individual to adequate
training to develop the individual's full literacy potential free
from reasonable financial or other barriers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA SEAT BELT ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-366, an act respecting seat belts in federal
vehicles and school buses.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill would require that all vehicles
under federal jurisdiction, including military vehicles, must be
equipped with seat belts for the driver and passengers if they
are operated on a public highway. The design of the seat belt
must comply with the regulations and the laws of the province in
which the vehicles are used. There is a power to exempt vehicles
in special cases but not for vehicles that regularly transport
students.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CONSUMER CREDIT INFORMATION ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-367, an act respecting the release of credit
information.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill would require federally
regulated financial institutions, such as banks, federally
incorporated corporations and credit bureaus, which intend to
give credit record information to credit grantors or credit
bureaus, to first advise the individual who it affects.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1215
PETITIONS
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present today.
The first petition is signed by many people in my riding who
call upon the government to eliminate the right of landing fee of
$975, otherwise known as the immigration head tax. The
petitioners feel strongly that this is a barrier to immigration
and that there is no room for this type of thing in a democracy
that seeks to attract new Canadians.
BELL CANADA
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is signed by many Canadians from right across the
country who call upon the government to intervene and call upon
Bell Canada to stop subcontracting its work to American
subcontractors. The petitioners cite that this is motivated by
corporate greed and costs Canadians jobs. Many Canadian
operators are being laid off and Bell Canada services are now
being provided by American subcontractors in the United States.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed primarily by
people in my riding who are concerned about increasing religious
intolerance against Christians throughout the world today and
here in Canada.
They call upon parliament to speak out more forcefully against
atrocities being committed against Christian minorities around
the world and specifically in China.
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on
behalf of the citizens of Ontario and Alberta, as well as members
of the Royal Canadian Air Force and the RCAFWDs who call upon
parliament to preserve the Rockcliffe station and keep it in the
public domain.
The petitioners hope that the federal government will make
Rockcliffe station a living memorial to the important
contribution the men and women of the RCAF made to the history of
Canada.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce the
signatures of 349 petitioners in support of Bill C-246, an act to
amend the criminal code to prohibit coercion in medical
procedures that offend a person's religion or belief that human
life is inviolable.
The petitioners want to ensure that health care providers will
never be forced to participate against their wills in procedures
such as abortions or acts of euthanasia. They note that Canada
has a long history of recognizing the rights of freedom of
religion and conscience. They lament the fact that health care
workers and those seeking to be educated for our health care
system often have been denied those rights in medical facilities
and educational institutions. Some have even been wrongfully
dismissed.
The petitioners affirm Bill C-246 because it would make these
conscience rights explicit in law and would safeguard health care
workers' fundamental human rights.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
KANESATAKE INTERIM LAND BASE GOVERNANCE ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-24, an
act to implement an agreement between the Mohawks of Kanesatake
and Her Majesty in right of Canada respecting governance of
certain lands by the Mohawks of Kanesatake and to amend an Act in
consequence, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will
conclude my remarks on Bill S-24 on an extremely important aspect
of the bill and one that we should try to introduce into future
pieces of legislation as we hand political and economic
responsibilities over to first nations in Canada, and that is,
the ability to pass laws for the first nations.
The bill would give the Mohawks of Kanesatake the power to make
laws in a number of areas that were formerly made at the
municipal, provincial and federal levels. It must be pointed out
that the laws made by the Mohawks of Kanesatake could not be less
stringent than existing municipal and provincial laws.
I was the critic for Indian affairs and northern development in
the 36th parliament. This issue came up time and again in
various legislation, especially in municipal legislation, in the
Mi'kmaq Education Act and in the First Nations Land Management
Act.
1220
Each and every one of those times that aspect of those bills was
refuted or ignored by critics of those bills. We cannot ignore
that. We cannot give people rights and privileges without
according them the powers to implement those rights and
privileges.
What is important here, and it was extremely important in other
pieces of legislation as well, is that the reins of political
responsibility are being handed over to the Mohawks of
Kanesatake. It ensures that the rights of individuals in the
Mohawk nation are protected because the laws that will be passed
in the areas over which they have jurisdiction will be no less
protective of those areas than existing laws.
That does not preclude the Mohawks of Kanesatake from passing
laws that are superior to existing laws, that are more protective
of the environment, that are more protective of peace, good order
and good government. However it guarantees a base from which
they must start.
This is an extremely important part of this piece of legislation
and others we have passed in the House. It is with pleasure that
I stand on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to
support this legislation.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed from May 30 consideration of Bill C-11, an act
respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee
protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger,
as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the
motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. I believe this is the appropriate
time for me to say that there have been consultations among the
parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent of the
House to have the report stage motions for Bill C-11 in the name
of the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River transferred to the
name of the hon. member for Surrey Central.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the
review in committee of Bill C-11, the hon. members for Laval
Centre, Mississauga West, Dauphin—Swan River and other members of
the committee truly co-operated to ensure that this bill would
reflect the best interests of Canadians.
I am indebted to my colleagues, because during the clause by
clause review, I learned a great deal about the Immigration Act
and the immigration process as such.
I had previously had the opportunity to visit various offices
abroad, where potential immigrants seek Immigration Canada's
assistance. I was impressed by the work of our immigration
officers. Again, I learned a lot.
Like many Canadians, I realize that we are a privileged nation
and it is no surprise that a large number of people all over the
world wish to settle in our country.
1225
In the clause by clause study, several issues were addressed. Of
course, many of these issues were debated in a spirit of
co-operation. We really wanted to end up with a bill as in sync
with the Immigration Act as possible.
Many things can be said and many comments can be made about the
most positive elements of this bill, but three things caught my
attention. The goal here is to make the Immigration and
Citizenship Act much more effective.
When we try to make changes to legislation to make it more
effective, people sometimes say “To speed up the process, you
might have to scratch some significant elements. I do not think
that is the case here.
The bill includes very positive measures
for refugees, like new appeals to the Refugee Appeal Division.
Measures are being taken to ensure that refugees have the
opportunity to integrate into Canadian society. I do not think
the changes proposed to the legislation ignore this issue. Quite
the opposite, we have made access to our country easier for
refugees.
Many concerns were raised during consideration of this bill, and
rightly so.
There are people who come to our country and apply for refugee
status because, unfortunately, they have been victims of torture
in their country of origin. Therefore, in response to
initiatives by Canadian NGOs and the United Nations, we
incorporated an element about torture into the bill, meaning
that people who are or have been victims of torture, or who are
at risk of being tortured, may be able to qualify to become
Canadian citizens, provided that they meet other criteria.
We have also introduced a new measure: risk assessment before
removal. There are occasions when, unfortunately, people
claiming refugee status do not meet all our criteria, which are
very compassionate. Nonetheless, such people have a second
chance, as it were, to have their case reviewed.
If the circumstances have changed in their country of origin
such that it would be dangerous for them to return, that is one
of the factors that could work in favour of their being accepted
into Canada. However, I do not wish to dwell any further on
this.
As I have already mentioned, several other members have comments
to make on this bill. As a general comment, as immigration
evolves in our country, we know that it is extremely important
for our future and for the prosperity of our country. With this
evolution, there will be changes in the regulations, and the
parliamentary committees will be able to examine all these
regulations. I am sure that this will be done in the future.
I am grateful to all those who helped draft this bill. I
learned many things along the way.
It should also be pointed out that the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration has been very open, always ready to explain or
clarify elements of the bill. I believe that this bill is a
great improvement, and that there will be others in the future.
1230
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank you for giving me the opportunity to join in the debate on
Group No. 1 at report stage of Bill C-11. As the former
spokesperson for immigration issues for my party, I was very much
involved in the development of Bill C-31, which as we know is now
known as Bill C-11. It will make changes to the Immigration and
Refugee Act.
As is well known, our party has been quite critical of the
shortcomings of Bill C-11 and the former Bill C-31. We were very
open in our criticisms. We disagreed with both the tone and the
content of the bill in many ways. We felt the bill dealt far too
much with enforcement issues. We felt that the whole immigration
policy dealt far too much with enforcement. It dedicated much of
our time and resources to keeping people out of the country
rather than trying to attract people into the country. This is
the type of tone or the type of content that we now see in Bill
C-11.
We pointed out that much of the impetus or rationale behind this
tone found its origin in an overreaction to the Chinese boat
people who drifted up on the west coast of British Columbia. The
public hysteria whipped up by the Reform Party and by the
Canadian Alliance Party would have us believe that the country
was under siege or being invaded in some irresponsible way.
Many of us remember the reaction of members of parliament from
the Reform Party in British Columbia when those boats started
arriving. They were saying: “Turn them around and send them
back in these rusty old tubs. Who cares if they drown at sea?
They do not deserve sanctuary on our shores. They do not even
deserve to have a hearing to determine if they are actual
refugees”.
There were press conferences in which Reform members were saying
such things. They used what was really an anomaly of 600 people
within a relatively short time arriving on our shores for their
own political purposes. It was an anti-immigration stance.
I am very critical that somehow the ruling party, the Liberal
Party, seems to have allowed itself to be pulled around by the
nose on this issue. This is the attitude or reaction that we
found more and more. All they want to talk about in the bill is
enforcement: how to keep people out, how to keep our borders
secure, and how to stop criminals from getting in.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: That is wrong. That is not true.
Mr. Pat Martin: Again the Alliance Party is fond of
trying to whip up this hysteria that our borders are an open
sieve, that we are allowing criminals in and that we are some
kind of sanctuary for every criminal element, gangster and
terrorist in the world. This is what the Alliance Party would
have us believe about immigration. I find it frustrating.
We are dealing with the bill as it stands now. Flawed as it is,
we are talking to it. I am very proud of the member of
parliament for Winnipeg North Centre, the new spokesperson.
Mr. Ken Epp: Sure you are. You lie all the time.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think someone just called
me a liar.
Mr. Ken Epp: You lie all the time.
Mr. Pat Martin: I do not think that is very flattering.
It is unparliamentary at the very least. I will continue anyway.
I have fairly thick skin.
The member for Winnipeg North Centre has done an admiral job at
the committee to try to move amendments and improve some of the
shortcomings in the bill. One of the significant changes that
she put forward, which was in fact passed, was having a gender
analysis done of the bill.
1235
This is something that should happen automatically. It is in
keeping with federal government policy since 1995 that for new
legislation an adequate gender analysis should be conducted to
review whether there is a disproportionate impact of any piece of
legislation we might undertake, to review whether it affects
women differently.
We succeeded in that. We had that amendment passed and I think
it will improve the bill, because there are issues. When we talk
about family reunification and about income requirements to
sponsor family members, there is a gender factor. As we know,
women make 66% of what men make. If a person's ability to
sponsor a family member is to be tied to their income, then
certainly we must have some sensitivity in that regard.
The one thing not addressed in the amendments at the committee
stage is a shortcoming we have pointed out many times, that is,
there was no mention of eliminating the right of landing fee,
which we believe is one of the biggest barriers to attracting new
Canadians to our shores. We have been calling for its
eradication ever since it was introduced by the Liberal
government, to tell the truth. We finally convinced the
government to eliminate the right of landing fee for refugees,
but it still stands to this day for other classes of new
Canadians. In fact, we are also calling for the elimination of
the administration fees that are still being charged to refugees.
We were not successful in that, but we will continue in our
campaign to have those charges and fees eradicated.
We also pointed out a number of shortcomings in the bill. One
of the flaws we pointed out and wanted to change is that too much
in this bill is left to the regulations. We were very concerned
that members of the House and members of the committee would have
very little input into the drafting of the regulations. It was
the member for Winnipeg North Centre who moved agreement at the
committee stage that the regulations would in fact be put before
parliament for approval. This is huge. This is a really
innovative change.
Again, I compliment the member for Winnipeg North Centre for
having the foresight to bring that forward, because it was
glaringly obvious to all of us who read the bill that a lot of
the details that will affect the day to day operation of the
immigration department will be found in the regulations and not
in the act. As members of parliament we want some ability to
have some say in how those regulations are crafted. With the
bill, they would come before the House of Commons.
There is another thing that should have been cleared up. I
appeal to the minister and the department to address it, even
after Bill C-11 passes. There is very little in the former act
or in Bill C-31 or Bill C-11 that helps to clear up the
definitions of terrorists, criminal activity, what level of
criminal we are trying to bar from entry to the country and what
sort of membership and what kind of terrorist organization one
must have taken part in to be barred on those grounds. The bill
is very vague. It leaves far too much to the discretion of
officers who may have varying ideas of how this is to be
implemented.
We pointed out that if we are too absolute in barring people who
may have taken part in or may have been members of terrorist
agencies, if we are too strict in our enforcement of this, we
could be barring people like Nelson Mandela, who was a member of
the ANC, which was called a terrorist organization. Now it is
called the government of the day, but at the time it was a
terrorist organization that took up arms to fight for freedom.
Surely this is not the intention that the architects who drafted
the bill had in mind, but it is one of the byproducts of being
negligent by not being very clear about what we are seeking to
achieve when we try to bar people who may have been involved in
some kind of terrorist activity at some point in their lives.
Also, the smuggling of people is a very top of mind issue. I
have pointed out a number of times that sometimes smuggling of
people is done for humanitarian reasons, in order to get people
out of harm's way, to save their lives in many senses.
1240
The underground railway through which American slaves were
smuggled was a trafficking in human beings. When we talk about
cracking down on smugglers, yes, we want to stop people from
exploiting people and trading in human cargo but let us keep in
mind that sometimes these actions take place for humanitarian
reasons. Smuggling of people can be done with the best
intentions of keeping people from harm.
I appreciate being able to add my remarks on Bill C-11. We will
be voting against the motion as it stands.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
are talking about two sets of objectives. One set of objectives
relates to immigration and the other relates to refugees. Some
clauses in the bill in relation to the objectives are laudable,
but when we go beyond the statement of objectives and get into
the meat of the bill, we, like our friends who just spoke, have
concerns.
Some of the objectives would permit Canada to pursue the maximum
social, cultural and economic benefits of immigration. Who can
argue with that? All of us in the House could be considered
immigrants to Canada at one time or another. In my case, my
ancestors on both sides came from another island called Ireland.
They settled in Newfoundland about 150 to 200 years ago. Many of
the people who lived in the area in which I live came from the
same place.
Those people came to Canada when Newfoundland was not a part of
the country. Canada joined us in 1949. They came here to settle
in different communities and fish, because at that time they
could make a living. Today we would not refer to it as a living.
I guess we would refer to it as an existence, but sometimes we do
not know the difference. As somebody once told me, we did not
know we were poor until somebody told us. I guess that is it
when we start comparing standards. It depends on how much we
have and how well we deal with it. In those days people dealt
with their lot very well.
However, today it is entirely different when people come to our
country. We have an immense country. We just have to fly over
it and look out the airplane window at the open spaces. I quite
often think about that, having flown over places such as India
where the population is so dense that there are very few open
spaces any more. Even when we fly into mainstream Europe or over
England, we can see that almost every inch of the land is
cultured and cultivated. Then we fly over Canada and see what a
difference there is and how people who live elsewhere in the
world in crowded conditions could appreciate our openness, our
fresh air and what we have to offer.
We do have a tremendous amount to offer, particularly in the
development of the great resources in our country, if only
government regulations would let us develop these resources for
the benefit of the people without throwing in a lot of red tape
and political jargon.
One of the concerns I have heard raised just recently by people
who have immigrated to our country was that as new groups come
in, new people who are perhaps not familiar with our customs and
language, they are having a problem finding suitable employment.
In a lot of cases they are not aware of the customs and do not
speak the language very well. They find it very hard to get by
the different industrial concerns, particularly in our large
cities.
1245
That raises a major concern. First, I suppose it is idealistic
to say there should be a crash preparatory course, something like
a premarital course, for people coming to our country. Quite
often people come not because they want to but because they need
to depending on the conditions they leave behind.
When people come to Canada I do not know how well we are
prepared to make sure that they fit into our society, that they
are accepted and that they are nursed along so they can establish
themselves without basically being rejected because they do not
fit into the mainstream.
In our larger centres we have groups who are not brought into
the mainstream and cannot find employment because of where they
came from, the language they speak or whatever reason. There is
a tendency for younger people in such groups to do what our own
young people do when they are kept not active: get into trouble.
Some of the concerns raised in larger cities about such groups
are not raised simply because there is an innate, built-in reason
for them to rebel against society. It is because they do not fit
into the new society in which they find themselves. The onus is
on us not only to welcome people into the country but to make
sure we have provisions in place to deal with them when they come
here.
We talk about enriching and strengthening the social and
cultural fabric of Canadian society while respecting the federal
and bilingual character of Canada. It is an extremely important
objective. The people who come here from all over the world add
to the culture of our country. They add to the strength of our
country. They all bring much with them and make a contribution.
We can look around the House on an ordinary day and see members
who represent different districts in the country. Looking at the
backgrounds of members we realize that they come from all over
this great world. We are now living in Canada and are all
Canadians. It does not matter what our backgrounds are. All of
us in our own way have contributed to the growth of this great
country.
One of the concerns is in relation to the second part,
respecting the federal and bilingual characters of the country.
One of the things we must realize is that when people come to
Canada they ask to be Canadians. If people have problems where
they come from, if they leave countries because of oppression,
persecution, social conditions or whatever reason and choose
Canada, as so many do, they must be encouraged as immigrants to
make sure they are now part of this great country we call Canada.
Quite often it means having to leave behind habits, customs and
so on, but that is the choice people make when they come here.
Canada is a bilingual country whether or not we all accept it. A
lot of people may say that is insignificant. However those of us
who move throughout the country realize that the two founding
nations are still extremely strong. The two languages are
extremely strong and are the accepted languages of the country.
We should make sure we know them and can communicate quite well
in them.
We also must keep in mind that people who come to our country
might find it hard to adapt. That again is where it is great to
have objectives, but if we do not provide for the implementation
of the objectives then people who come here will have no way of
coping with what we require.
1250
Again in relation to refugees, many people come here because
they are forced to. Again, these are things we must deal with.
The objectives are tremendous. The implementations in many cases
are weak and that is what we must work on collectively.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-11 today.
There is no question that it has been a long time in coming and
contains comprehensive changes. However, as my colleague from
the NDP indicated, the bill does not contain enough changes for
us to support it. We still have great concerns about many areas
in the legislation and I will reflect on a few of those.
The people who work in Citizenship and Immigration Canada have
been absolutely excellent for the most part when my staff and I
have dealt with them. They are extremely helpful and go out of
their way to try to resolve issues. Problems tend to arise not
because they do not want to help or do their best but because of
the policies and processes that have been put in place. As a
result, some people have come into the country who should not be
here. There have been instances where people have not acted
their best while in Canada. As the saying goes, one bad apple
spoils the whole bunch.
Those cases have not been blown out of proportion, but a number
of them seem to have been. As a result, people immigrating to
Canada, especially in the last few years, have been attacked by
people with certain agendas. As a Canadian, I am disappointed to
see that because I expect more.
I grew up in a Canada that was quite different. In rural
Saskatchewan where I grew up there were often only one or two
obvious minorities or other nationalities. Other than first
nations people and the usual European mix of people and French
speaking people whose parents or grandparents had come over,
there was only the odd obvious minority.
However I grew up with a very great respect for multiculturalism
in Canada. It was taught in our school system. I grew up
respecting the diversity of cultures and not expecting everybody
to be the same. I grew up respecting people's differences and
understanding that we were all here to enjoy Canada and be active
participants in the country.
As I said, my experience with departmental officials has been
for the most part very good. However there are extreme failures
in the system. One of those failures, which has not been touched
on in this or previous debates, is the fact that changes within
the department have led to case files of people who enter the
country being dealt with by people who are not always the most
qualified or experienced. As a result, we do not necessarily
have the best outcomes.
I am not blaming the individuals. However the experienced
people are not dealing with the files or not enough people are
dealing with the files and as a result things do not flow as
smoothly as they should.
I will comment on some cases I have personally dealt with within
my office. I apologize to the minister because I have never
discussed the cases with her. I often intend to because I have
certain views of how things happen but I have not had the
opportunity. These cases are not ones on which the minister has
been made aware but it is obvious that there are other such cases
or we would not have these clauses in the bill.
1255
One of the major issues is in relation to gender and race. I
was quite surprised to get the impression, from a number of cases
I have dealt with through my office, that women from certain
countries do not get treated the same.
That has been hard for me to handle. The first situation was
regarding women in Russia who want to come to Canada. In one
case there were teachers in Canada who were willing to sponsor a
young woman. The woman worked in Russia as a teacher. She was
single and probably in her late thirties. The teachers had known
her for some five years. They went over and visited regularly as
part of an educational program in Russia. I had the opportunity
to see how that program worked when I was in Russia so it was a
great experience for me.
I think the young woman paid the equivalent of $50 Canadian to
apply to come and visit the teachers in Canada. She was denied
outright. The Canadian teachers told me this was an ongoing
problem whenever they wanted to bring someone over for a visit,
even when they signed on the person's behalf. There seems to be
an impression that a Russian woman coming to Canada does so for
only one reason: to somehow try to stick around, stay in Canada
and not adhere to the rules.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There have been consultations with the other parties and I
believe you would find unanimous consent for the House to concur
in the 24th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Elk Island
have unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, because there is an
impression out there that a lot of single Russian women only want
to come to Canada for one reason, they all get painted with the
same brush. I found that rather disheartening because I firmly
believe someone is innocent until proven guilty. If someone has
not committed a crime they should not be denied access to our
country because they might commit a crime. To me there must be a
justifiable reason. That was disappointing for me.
In Russia $50 Canadian is a whole lot of money. It might not
seem like much to us but in Russia it is a whole lot of money. It
was about three months' salary for that person. She applied and
was denied and did not get her money back. Any time there is a
new application the money is gone.
Another situation involved a woman from India who had to travel
some 200 kilometres to apply to come to Canada to visit her first
born grandchild. Her son had been adopted out to another family
but had kept in contact with his biological mother. He had his
first child and the biological mother—
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There have been consultations with the other parties and I
believe you would find unanimous consent for the House to concur
in the 24th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous
consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1300
The Deputy Speaker: I will let the member for Churchill
conclude her remarks and hopefully the negotiations will be
brought to a conclusion the next time the matter is raised.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, there
was a situation where a woman in India wanted to come to Canada
to see her first grandchild. She travelled close to 200
kilometres to make her application only to then have it denied.
She did not have a record so there was no reason for the denial.
It was suggested that she would not return to India even though
she had a husband there and they had a business. Once again it
was presumed that the person would commit a crime before it was
committed. I find that disheartening.
I will take this opportunity to admit to those who are not aware
that I am a grandmother. For that reason it was especially
upsetting for me to hear that this woman, who wanted to come and
see her first born grandchild, was not allowed to. Again, there
was no reason for it.
I know of another situation involving a young woman from China
who wanted to visit her sister who is married to a Canadian. I am
not sure if the woman's sister is working but the husband works
in Canada.
This young woman lives on a very low income in China and I
understand her family helped out by making sure she had enough
money to visit Canada. Once again, she was denied the
opportunity to visit Canada just because she might not go back.
In every case that I have seen like this it has always involved
women. I have seen issues relating to men wishing to come over
but there had always been some reason why they could not come. In
most of the cases that I have dealt with dealing with men there
was no problem. However, in each of the cases involving women
there were no crimes committed but they were not allowed to come
to Canada just in case.
The gender issue has to be recognized as a problem. I
acknowledge that an amendment was passed that dealt with that
issue. I hope when I do have the chance to speak to the minister
in more depth about these cases that we are able to sort out some
of those issues.
I also want to comment on an amendment that did not pass, which
I was quite upset about.
I will talk about another situation involving an older woman
from India. However at the age I am at now she is probably not
all that much older than I am. The woman had some problems with
her knees. We are all getting on and we might have a little bit
of arthritis or something like that. She was denied access
because of her health problem. As it was not a severe health
problem, there was no justification for not letting her in. This
was a minor health problem and she was denied entry. The family
was willing to sign a form saying that they would look after any
medical costs but she was still not allowed in. On those issues
alone I have been extremely disappointed with the system.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1305
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the member for Churchill for being so gracious. There
have been consultations with the other parties and I believe you
would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move
that the 24th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be
concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the consent
of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-11, an act respecting
immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to
persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger, as reported
(with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group
No. 1.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question in on Motion No. 2. 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: The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands
deferred.
The next question in on Motion No. 3. 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: The recorded division on Motion No. 3 stands
deferred.
The next question in on Motion No. 4. 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: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion No. 3 agreed to)
1310
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
That
Bill C-11, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing line 2 on
page 17 with the following:
That
Bill C-11, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing line 6 on
page 25 with the following:
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 64, be amended by deleting lines 32 to
43 on page 29 and lines 1 to 6 on page 30.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) moved:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 64, be amended by adding after line 43
on page 29 the following:
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the
people of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage
debate on the motions in Group No. 2 to amend Bill C-11, an act
respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee
protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.
While the bill contains much needed changes to the Canadian
immigration system, it also has a series of serious flaws, no
matter what the weak Liberal government tries to tell Canadians
about the new legislation. It can participate in all the
propaganda and sugar coating it wants, but Bill C-11 will not
deliver what it intends to deliver without proper enforcement,
management and accountability.
Earlier the NDP member from Winnipeg Centre spoke to the first
group of amendments. I do not believe he believed in what he
said in his speech. The lack of clarity, prudence and real
enforcement behind the legislation, despite its wrong tone and
content, would ultimately cause more troubles than the
legislation it purports to replace.
There is far too much reliance on 89 pages of regulations to
interpret the legislation. Much of what is in the regulations
could be drafted into the new legislation. The regulations
essentially give the minister the option of running the
department any way that she or he sees fit. This is not
accountability or transparency by government.
The weak Liberal government has a habit of governing not by
legislation but by regulations. It not only makes legislation
undemocratic but makes it complex and opaque. Being the past
co-chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of
Regulations I can say that with certainty. The regulations
cannot be debated in parliament, so I call it governing through
the back door.
Let me make it absolutely clear to everyone, including those who
have taken the time to watch the debate on TV, that the Canadian
Alliance policies are pro-immigration, but we do not want
ineffective legislation passed in the House.
The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River, the hon. member for
Blackstrap and I as members of the citizenship and immigration
committee attempted to make amendments to make the legislation
effective and workable, but the Liberals refused to co-operate.
Most of our amendments were rejected by the Liberal dominated
committee.
There is history to indicate that the arrogant Liberal
government will not accept most opposition amendments to any
bill. It has blatantly refused to accept amendments from the
opposition to Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice act which we
debated a few days ago.
Bill C-11 would replace the 25 year old Immigration Act, 1976.
The previous act has been a mess. That is why in many of the
constituency offices of MPs major workloads are arising from
mismanagement by the department.
Sixty to eighty-five per cent of the resources in constituency
offices are utilized in many ridings by immigration alone, and
that is not fair.
1315
I have difficulty understanding why politicians have to be
involved in visitors' visas, for example. MPs are elected by
Canadians and represent Canadians, not people in other countries.
It should be the responsibility of the immigration officers
abroad to make fair decisions, not the politicians but those
well-trained immigration officials.
Surprisingly the Liberal candidates, or even the failed
candidates, made promises to people to get visitors' visas
issued. They should be immediately stopped from making any
representations on behalf of Canadians to the immigration
officials in our embassies and high commissions abroad. Ministers
continue to abuse ministers' permits to oblige their Liberal
friends for political support.
In this group there are four amendments.
Motion No. 5, moved by the Canadian Alliance, deals with the
inadmissibility clause 34 of the bill. It replaces line (d),
“being a danger to the security of Canada” with “being a
threat to the security of Canada as defined by section 2 of the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act”.
There is no definition of danger or threat to the security of
Canada in the act. It is left to the subjective judgment.
Therefore, this amendment is very important.
The opinion of those government agencies and officials with
expertise in security must be heard and employed. It should not
be ministers or politicians who should decide on political lines.
The decision should be made by experts, based on facts and
logic.
CSIS, RCMP and other law enforcement agencies know who is a risk
and who is not a risk. They should be the authority in the area,
not the weak Liberal minister.
That is why the finance minister and the international
co-operation minister should not have attended the fundraiser by
the organization said to be the front for Tamil tigers based on
advice from CSIS. That is why this weak Liberal government
should not have ordered to shred the report called “Sidewinder”
written by a frontline officer, Brian McAdam. He is contacted for
advice on security issues by the United States, Australia and
many other countries. However, at home the Liberal
government applied political pressure and had that report
shredded.
Bill C-11 is weak with respect to security risks. It allows for
front end security screening, but it only applies to refugees,
which in some cases is a physical impossibility. Front end
screening does not apply to applicants in general.
The bill promises to deliver better enforcement of security
measures for both refugee and immigrant applicants, but there is
no plan of action set out in the bill to explain how this will
work. No one should be allowed into Canada without proper checks
as to his or her risk to the security of our country.
There are no provisions in the bill for improved communications
between visa officers, law enforcement and international criminal
investigative units. Communication among the RCMP, CSIS and
other international criminal investigation units should be
mandatory and employed immediately. The auditor general pointed
out in his most recent report that this type of communication was
imperative. However, without a more open system and a far more
communicative department, the bill will not achieve these goals.
We have seen Lai Changxing, the accused kingpin smuggler, land
in Canada through queue jumping. He was not detected by the visa
officer by even a simple background check. Then there is the
example of the fellow who came to Canada with an active case of
tuberculosis and exposed some 1500 people to the deadly virus.
1320
Motion No. 6 was also moved by the Canadian Alliance. It deals
with loss of status by replacing line 1 in clause 50.
At present, there is no linkage between CSIS and the Department
of Citizenship and Immigration. Information from SIRC is
presently not utilized. CSIS may make mistakes which oversights
people's rights. The whole purpose of an appeal may be defeated
just because of that. SIRC reviews cases, and it is an oversight
committee over CSIS. It could take away power from the minister.
Probably that is the reason why many Liberals will not support
this. I urge them to look at the merit of the amendment and how
effective this will make the bill.
Motions Nos. 7 and 8 were moved by other parties. Motion No. 7
deals with right of appeal. This amendment will delete some
clauses and replace some others. Motion No. 8 will add something
to clause 64 that a permanent resident would be allowed to state
his or her case before being subjected to deportation or refusal
of entry, when CIC that saw fit to allow them into Canada in the
first place after due processing. These amendments are
important.
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all
four motions in Group No. 2 have been put forward by the
opposition parties.
I would love to be proven wrong and see at least one of these
amendments supported by the Liberal majority. That is how naive
I can be on any given Friday.
The first amendment is from the Canadian Alliance. This
amendment, which we will support, clarifies the concept of
security.
Reference is therefore made to the definition found in the act.
I will not say more about this amendment, except to reiterate
that we will support it.
The second amendment is also from the Canadian Alliance.
However, I do have some reservations about this one.
This bill already involves many stakeholders. Since only a few
stays are provided for in the bill, to set up a new committee to
examine the merits of an application to stay a removal order has
me a bit concerned. So, we will be voting against that
amendment.
The third amendment is by far the most important.
Mr. John Herron: Oh, oh.
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I would ask the
Conservative member to control his enthusiasm.
Motion No. 7 aims at reintroducing what can currently be found in
the legislation.
Under the present legislation, there are two stages to the
removal of a refugee or of a permanent resident to his or her
country of origin. The adjudication division is responsible for
the removal order, and the appeal division reviews the
circumstances of the case.
Under clause 64 of the bill, the decision will be made by the
officers, with no possibility that the case be heard by a court
of law or an independent tribunal.
Everyone in this beautiful country recognizes the value of our
justice system. I find it particularly troubling that a person
would be denied the right to appeal a decision that went against
his or her expectations.
What I am asking in my amendment is that clause 64 of the bill
be deleted in its entirety since it is aimed at denying a
protected person or a permanent resident the right to appeal a
removal order.
That is the third amendment.
Should that amendment be defeated, which is highly unlikely, we
will support Motion No. 8 proposed by my colleague from the
Conservative Party.
There is still hope.
1325
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I must begin by
apologizing to the member for Laval Centre for my outburst
during her speech.
[English]
I am sorry for making too much noise and distracting my dear
friend for Laval Centre.
Having said that, it is imperative that we go forth with respect
to this stage of Bill C-11.
[Translation]
I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on this bill at
report stage, and especially on the second group of motions,
Motions Nos. 5 to 8.
[English]
I would like to shape the tenor of the debate on this motion in
this regard, and I will recite from an editorial that was
published in my name in the Toronto Star today. I do not
know if the Chair has had a chance to read that particular
publication, but given that you have been busy in his present
place, I thought I would share some of those words.
These days, the government of this multicultural, multilingual
land built on immigration sounds disappointingly less welcoming
than it should. The (immigration minister's) proposed to reform
the 25-year-old Immigration Act, Bill C-11, falls far short of
the standard which Canada should use in treating immigrants and
refugees to this country.
As Progressive Conservative opposition critic on an immigration
committee, I sat and listened to the testimony of more than 150
witnesses and groups who almost all repeated the very same
serious concerns that parts of the bill were “draconian” and in
fact even “unCanadian”.
I am trying to utilize the language of this aspect of the report
today to shape where I am coming from for my motions.
At the end of the day, the same committee members on the Liberal
side who had heard repeated testimony across the country (at the
clause by clause stage) voted to allow only minor alterations to
a to the flawed bill. While the legislation does include some
very positive measures, such as increased fines for human
trafficking, we should not settle for legislation that still has
very serious problems.
The minister has unleashed this series of “tough measures”
which strip rights—including appeal rights—of permanent
residents in Canada and removes protection from refugees, under
the guise of making our system both fairer and faster. That's
where the support of this flawed piece of major legislation falls
apart.
We heard commentary that the issue of the expediency of existing
legislation is more of a matter of application of the act as
opposed to a fault with the act itself. I noted that members
from the Canadian Alliance talked about the issue of enforcement.
Before I go into the actual motions and our position on them, I
would like to share some language from a former prime minister,
the right hon. Brian Mulroney. I would ask all members of the
House to reflect on these particular words. He once said in the
early days of taking office:
There is no obligation more compelling, no duty more irresistible
in Canada than to ensure that our minorities, linguistic and
otherwise, live at all times in conditions of fairness and
justice.
If we allow this legislation to pass as is, including a clause
limiting refugee claimants to one claim per lifetime regardless
of any drastic change in circumstance, we are not fulfilling the
promise of Canada and living up to the legacy of our
predecessors.
I find it extremely ironic that the party of Wilfrid Laurier,
Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Mike Pearson, which had a legitimate
record on immigration, is now perceived to be the party the most
reticent to protect these—
1330
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. 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
[English]
ARMENIA
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.) moved:
That, in the
opinion of this House, the government should: (a) recognize
as genocide the killing of 1.5 million innocent Armenian
men, women and children in the period 1915 to 1923; (b)
condemn the genocide of the Armenians and all other acts of
genocide as the ultimate act of religious, racial and
cultural intolerance; (c) recognize the importance of
remembering and learning from the mistakes of history; and
(d) follow the recommendations of the Third Report of the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in the Second
session of the 36th Parliament, regarding the establishment,
within one year, of a research facility on genocide.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to acknowledge the
members of the Canadian Armenian community sitting in the
gallery, members of the Armenian Cultural Association of Ottawa,
His Excellency the Ambassador of the Republic of Armenia and of
course His Excellency the Ambassador of the Republic of Turkey.
This is not the first time these two ambassadors have come
together. On May 28, when we had the independence day
celebration, the ambassador of Turkey certainly was a celebrity
in the crowd of Armenians. I congratulate him for attending the
reception along with the Armenian ambassador.
Before I go further in explaining my motion, I would like to
give a historical background of the Armenian nation. Armenians
have over 3,000 years of recorded history. As a matter of fact,
on May 16, in room 200 of the parliament buildings, the Armenian
community celebrated the 1,700th anniversary of Christianity by
Canada Post issuing a stamp commemorating that fantastic event.
In the last 2,000 years or so Armenians have had four kingdoms.
The last king died in Paris when he went to Europe seeking the
help of Christian Europe, so to speak, for the defence of
Armenian rights in Asia Minor. Soon after that Armenians lost
their independence of their kingdom in a region called
Al-Ladhiqiyah, which is located on the northeast corner of the
Mediterranean Sea. From the 13th century to the 19th century
Armenians had a good relationship, on and off, with their
neighbours and communities.
However, in the early 1800s many Armenian intellectuals went to
Europe to study and educate themselves further. They went back
to Armenia at the end of the Ottoman Empire and asked for the
same rights for their fellow Armenians in the region that they
had had in Europe. The Red Sultan saw this as a threat. As a
result of the activities of the Armenians who were demanding
human rights, the Red Sultan decided to initiate the first major
massacre of the 19th century, which occurred in 1895 and 1896.
That was followed, in the early stages of World War I in 1915,
by what was known as the final solution by the party in Turkey at
the time. I should point out that this was before Ataturk came
to power in the early 1920s. As a result of the arrest of a
group of intellectuals on April 24, 1915, Armenians were deported
from their homeland. They were murdered and slaughtered. We
acknowledge their murder and slaughter but we do not characterize
it as genocide.
In Syria, in the Middle East, there is a town called Deir
ez-Zour. Deir ez-Zour is the Auschwitz of the Armenian nation.
Everyone knows about Auschwitz, but few people know about Deir
ez-Zour, and fewer people yet have been to Deir ez-Zour to see
the ruins and the remains of the Armenian nations as they were in
1915 to 1923.
The turning point for Armenian genocide was in 1965, the 50th
anniversary of the genocide. At that time, despite the fact that
Armenia was part of the U.S.S.R., the Armenian government was
brave enough to establish the first genocide memorial in the
world. That focused the attention of everyone in the world,
especially the Armenians living in Armenia. They go there every
year on April 24 to pay their respects to the victims of
genocide.
1335
The year 1965 also happened to be a turning point in the
diaspora for genocide activities to make sure they were
recognized by the world community.
In this country in 1980 the Ontario and Quebec parliaments
passed resolutions recognizing the genocide and asked the federal
government to follow suit and recognize genocide. I am glad to
say I have been involved with this activity since 1965, that is,
for the last 35 years. So far our activities have been fruitless
in this parliament and other parliaments around the world, but I
have to admit that Armenians throughout the world are making
progress.
A few years ago a United Nations committee recognized the
genocide and what happened to the Armenians. International
bodies recognized that what happened to Armenians was genocide.
The latest parliament to recognize the Armenian genocide was
Italy's. However, the most important thing at this stage is
this: I want to acknowledge the national assembly of France,
both its lower and upper houses, and the president of France, Mr.
Chirac, for France's recognition of the genocide of 1915 and for
passing a law. As I understand it, people cannot deny the
genocide, just as the Holocaust cannot be denied. People who do
can be charged with misrepresenting history.
At this point I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of
the House to table documents from the French national assembly,
the Zorian Institute and the Armenian World Alliance.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to
the hon. member for Brampton Centre to table the documents?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, on April 23, 1996,
the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion that stated:
—that the House recognize, on the occasion of the 81st
anniversary of the Armenian tragedy which claimed some 1.5
million lives on April 24, 1915, and in recognition of other
crimes against humanity, the week of April 20 to 27 of each year
as the week of remembrance of the inhumanity of people toward one
another.
This motion was passed unanimously in the House as a consequence
of debate on the motion brought forward by the then Bloc
Quebecois member of parliament for Ahuntsic.
Following the passage of that motion in February 1999, our
colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt brought forward a private
member's motion asking for similar recognition. I regret that
the Department of Foreign Affairs came up with a totally
unacceptable reply during that debate. As a consequence, the
then minister of foreign affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, asked fellow
Liberal members of parliament to form a committee to study this
issue. It was more than a study. It was to confirm the fact
that the genocide took place. For some reason the minister at
the time did not see fit to call it genocide.
However, in reply to my question in the House on June 10, 1999,
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
said:
On behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs I wish to inform the
House that together with all Canadians we remember the calamity
afflicted on the Armenian people in 1915. This tragedy was
committed with the intent to destroy a national group in which
hundreds of thousands of Armenians were subject to atrocities
which included massive deportations and massacres.
Our government introduced Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes, which was passed by the
House on June 13, 2000. Subsection 6(3) defines crimes against
humanity as intent to kill, in whole or in part, a national
minority group.
1340
It is the same answer I was given by the Minister of Foreign
Affairs. It was defined in Bill C-19. It also happens to be the
same definition of genocide as the UN's. I asked this question
of the foreign affairs representative when I was on the foreign
affairs committee. How come there is that same definition of
genocide in room 705 across the street, but in the Chamber the
same act of destroying national minorities, in whole or in part,
is defined as a tragedy?
The answer that was given, which members can see in the minutes,
of course, was that it had nothing to do with the Minister of
Foreign Affairs. That gentleman could not answer my question
about why it is that in this Chamber, destroying people in part
or in whole is a tragedy, but across the street it is genocide. I
am waiting for someone to give me the answer. Maybe we could all
rest in peace, then, if we could know why there are two standards
in the different rooms.
As I mentioned earlier, the Turkish ambassador was with us on
May 28. He mentioned jokingly that he felt like a celebrity.
There was a real celebrity in Toronto in the Scarborough area on
May 25 when the Armenian General Benevolent Union, together with
the Zorian Institute, organized a seminar. The speaker at the
seminar was a Turkish scholar who accepts the fact that there was
a genocide. He wonders when Turkey will do the same.
The scholar mentioned four reasons why Turkey cannot join the
European Community: first, the treatment of national minorities,
especially Kurds; second, the occupation of Cyprus; third, the
Armenian genocide; and fourth, Muslim fundamentalists in Turkey
who are getting stronger every day. His point was that Turkey
will have to address these four issues before it joins the
European Union.
He also said that in his mind many people such as scholars and
intellectuals in Turkish universities and research centres have
the same feeling, but they cannot speak up because of a fear of
retaliation from the government, like we have seen in the past
when even members of parliament were imprisoned. Scholars would
be denied their chairs and funding and what have you in Turkish
universities so that they would not be able to speak up on this
issue. However, with Canada being a free country the gentleman
felt free to express his point of view. I have to add that the
hall was packed with 500 people who showed an interest in the
gentleman speaking up. That was not the first time. There have
been a few others in the past.
As I mentioned earlier, France recognized the genocide of the
Armenians. The Turkish government was of course very angry and
upset, which could have been expected. It was very
disappointed and tried to cancel a contract with the French
government. I have asked about a dozen people to tell me the
monetary value of the cancellation, but so far no one can. Maybe
there was an impact from it in the first few weeks, but I do not
know of any dollar figure on how the French economy was damaged
due to the fact that this recognition took place. The Turkish
ambassador was called back from Paris to Ankara at the beginning
of February this year, but I understand that he is now on his way
back to France or is about to go to France. I think the issue is
dead now. There are no more problems between France and Turkey
because of France's recognition of this genocide.
If we recognize it in the House, I do not think there will be
anything big. The House will not cave in. World War III will
not be declared. It would simply be stating the historical fact
that, yes, genocide took place.
I would like thank the leaders of all five parties who me gave
unanimous consent to present this issue again. In that spirit I
would like to ask for unanimous consent that the House accept
Motion No. 285.
The Deputy Speaker: I would like some clarification from
the hon. member for Brampton Centre. Is he seeking unanimous
consent of the House to agree to the motion or unanimous consent
to make the motion votable?
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, it is unanimous
consent to agree to the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Brampton
Centre have consent to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1345
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate on the debate on the
four elements of the private member's Motion No. 285. I
appreciate the sentiment, the emotion and the sense of pursuing
research, education and remembrance, as well as learning from the
mistakes of history, which is at the heart of the motion.
Our colleague, the hon. member for Brampton Centre, did a great
deal of work on this issue in the last parliament. He even
caused this matter to come before the Canadian heritage committee
and forced the committee to issue a report. This was no small
feat.
At my House of Commons office some weeks ago, I had a visit by a
delegation from Canada's Armenian community that provided me with
some information. I also received information from the
Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations. I highly appreciate
the interest expressed by both communities in the work we do as
parliamentarians.
This is a very emotional and controversial matter. My heart
goes out to the families, the relatives and the survivors of this
dark era in human history.
Having previously spoken on a similar motion today, I rise with
misgivings about what the Liberal government is going to do with
this debate. I regret I cannot be more positive in my outlook,
but I do not want to try to fool anyone. I do not want either
the Turkish or the Armenian people to be hoodwinked by the weak
Liberal government that lacks vision. I want to be very clear
from the outset that the government is not going to recognize the
genocide to anyone.
Let us consider an exchange between Brian Mulroney and the late
Pierre Trudeau concerning the apology to Japanese Canadians for
their internment during the second world war. Mr. Trudeau said,
as recorded in Hansard, June 29, 1984:
There is no way in which we can relive the history of that
period. In that sense, we cannot redress what was done. We can
express regret collectively, as we have done.
I do not see how I can apologize for some historic event to
which we or these people in this House were not a party. We can
regret that it happened. But why mount to great heights of
rhetoric in order to say that an apology is much better than an
expression of regret? This I cannot too well understand.
Why does Mulroney not apologize for what happened during the
Second World War to mothers and fathers of people sitting in this
House who went to concentration camps? I know some of them, Mr.
Speaker. They were not Japanese Canadians. They were Canadians
of Italian or German origin, or some old French Canadians who
went to jail, who went to concentration camps during the Second
World War. Why do we not apologize to them?
I do not think it is the purpose of a government to right the
past. It cannot re-write history. It is our purpose to be just
in our time, and that is what we have done by bringing in the
Charter of Rights.
On December 14, 1994, the Liberals' position on redress was
articulated by Sheila Finestone, the then secretary of state for
multiculturalism and status of women.
She said:
Seeking to heal the wounds caused by the actions of previous
governments, six ethnocultural communities have requested redress
and compensation totalling hundreds of millions of dollars. The
government understands the strong feelings underlying these
requests. We share the desire to heal those wounds.
The issue is whether the best way to do this is to attempt to
address the past or to invest in the future. We believe our only
choice lies in using limited government resources to create a
more equitable society now and a better future for generations to
come.
Therefore the government will not grant financial compensation
for the requests made. We believe our obligation lies in acting
to prevent these wrongs from recurring.
1350
This latter quote, I believe, is most significant because this
is what the hon. member for Brampton Centre is up against. He is
up against his own political party on this issue. I seriously
doubt that he will be successful. The apology and compensation
package given to Japanese-Canadians has set a precedent.
Italians and Ukrainians interned in World War I and World War II
have also demanded apology.
There are many other communities and groups asking the
government to redress the historical past, the wrongs done in
history. Let me also remind the House of another situation.
One of the political parties in the House was in power in 1914
when 376 passengers, who were British subjects, arrived on a ship
named Komagata Maru. They were not allowed to land on Canadian
soil because of an exclusionist immigration policy based on race
and the country of origin.
The policy had its origin in the 1880s, when the Canadian
government first imposed a head tax on Chinese immigrants. The
government erected a variety of barriers until 1962.
The passengers on the Komagata Maru thought they had the right
to enter Canada because they were British subjects, British
citizens. Ninety per cent of the passengers on the ship were
Sikhs. The rest were Hindus and Muslims, but they all came from
Punjab. Sikh soldiers who had served throughout the British
Empire thought they should be able to work wherever the British
flag was flying.
After two months of detention in Vancouver harbour, the
government brought in the cruiser Rainbow and aimed its
guns at the Komagata Maru. That was the first time the Canadian
navy used the ship for aggression. The ship was escorted with
352 passengers still on board. It was a bitter and disappointing
moment for the friends watching the ship disappear.
A voyage that began on April 4 did not end until September 29 in
Calcutta, Indian, where the police opened fire and killed 19 of
those passengers. Others were arrested.
In a more tolerant Canada, the Komagata Maru remains a powerful
symbol for Sikhs and one that should remind others of the
historical past. As a consequence, we are beginning to reassess
our past. Giving attention to the Komagata Maru is part of the
process.
Will the government offer an apology? I do not think so. Still,
some of the candidates of the Liberal Party in the last election
shamelessly used all the propaganda they could without
apologizing or redressing for their party's behaviour with
respect to the Komagata Maru incident.
How about the Chinese interns who are demanding a redress along
with 10 or so other groups?
As I said, the hon. member is facing unfavourable odds in terms
of having his motion passed by the House. He already
acknowledged that the government, his party which governs this
country, has double standards.
Certainly the human race should recognize the importance of
remembering and learning from the mistakes of history. We should
make sure that such incidents are not repeated again anywhere on
this planet.
1355
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this is not the first time that I have risen in the House to
talk about the Parliament of Canada recognizing the Armenian
genocide.
Over 1.5 million people were killed, disappeared, in the course
of the Armenian genocide, a deliberate act of a government which
had decided to eliminate this population.
The first motion in which I participated was in 1996. It was
introduced by the member for Ahuntsic, Michel Daviault, and its
purpose was the same as that of the motion today.
The motion back then was agreed to, but the government was very
careful to replace the word genocide with the word
tragedy.
We have now entered the third millennium. It is perhaps time
that the Government of Canada followed in the footsteps of many
international parliaments and had the courage to call a genocide
a genocide.
There have always been governments who have taken it upon
themselves to wipe populations off the map. Even here, in 1755,
there was an attempt to wipe the Acadian people out of
existence.
It did not succeed. It seems that, however great the desire to
destroy, there is a life force which keeps these peoples alive
and keeps them remembering. They remember that destroying a
people is like destroying a person: it is a wound from which one
does not recover.
There is a sizeable Armenian community in Laval. This is a
community that never fails to amaze me, as its members are so
well integrated into Quebec society, while at the same time ever
mindful of who they are.
There are great-grandmothers in Laval who are survivors of the
Armenian genocide and who have transmitted to their
grandchildren and great-grandchildren the painful knowledge that
someone once wanted them dead.
I believe that a country like Canada, which passes itself off in
all international forums as a champion of human rights, has a
duty of conscience to recognize the Armenian genocide.
Numerous motions have been passed, even in the Senate. One of
the members of the Senate has proposed a similar motion.
Will this government have the courage to recognize the Armenian
genocide? I do not believe that this government lacks
compassion. What it does lack is the courage to differentiate
between economic interests and values. I believe economic
interests are important, but I also believe that, over and above
economic interests, values must come first. If the economy is
what takes precedence, we will be able to accept just about
anything, and I do not believe that is what Canadians and
Quebecers want.
Are there many countries in the world that have recognized the
Armenian genocide?
Beginning with Canada, there are two provinces that have
recognized the Armenian genocide. These two account for some
60% of the total population of Canada. Hon. members will
realize I am speaking of Quebec and Ontario.
Thus, 60% of the people of Canada acknowledge that the Armenian
genocide did indeed occur and must be recognized.
We will head south a little. In the United States, a number of
individual states have also recognized the Armenian genocide.
The ones close to us include New York, Massachusetts and
Delaware. In the centre, things are quiet. However, it is not
surprising to discover that California too recognizes the
Armenian genocide.
What about Europe? France, Israel, Lebanon, Russia,
Bulgaria, Greece, Belgium and Cyprus have recognized it.
In South America, Uruguay and Argentina have also recognized it.
1400
On June 18, 1987, the European parliament, in accordance with
the guideline of the UN human rights commission issued two years
previously, also recognized the Armenian genocide.
I am having a very hard time understanding why the Government of
Canada is resisting what has become a matter of fact. We may
well be in the third millennium, but genocides will continue.
With the speed of communications, will international society let
peoples disappear because a government has decided they should?
At the start of the 20th century, communications were much less
sophisticated than they are now, as we know. The Rwandan
massacre occurred not so long ago.
There could be other ones, whether it is in Africa or in Asia.
Do we not have a responsibility to act as a watchdog?
If the Government of Canada recognizes the Armenian genocide,
will it not send a clear message that it will never again close
its eyes on a future genocide? We cannot change the past, but we
can recognize that a genocide took place and we can regret that
it happened. In the future we may have to make decisions that
will involve the respect for individuals, nations and our
society's values.
I call on all parliamentarians to begin a personal reflection on
values such as compassion and respect for individuals. None of
us can reject out of hand the kind of reflection that we must
make as parliamentarians and citizens.
The motion before us cannot be a votable item. I deeply regret
it, but there will be other ones. I hope the next one will be a
votable item, because I tabled one a few weeks ago, with the
same objective: that parliament recognize the genocide.
I firmly hope that this motion will be a votable item and that
parliamentarians will stand up and tell the world that Canada no
longer tolerates genocides, because they are totally contrary to
the human values of equality and respect.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to indicate my own support for Motion No. 285 and I can
say with certainty that all members of the NDP caucus support
this particular motion. It contains language, the use of the
word genocide, to describe what happened many years ago, language
that we find acceptable, language which we would urge the
government to adopt in its description of those same events.
We also note, as have others, that many national parliaments in
Europe have recognized the Armenian genocide. The Bloc Quebecois
member who just spoke I believe noted the fact that the Ontario
and Quebec legislatures have done the same.
1405
Frankly we do not understand the reluctance of the Canadian
government to recognize the Armenian genocide. We think it would
go a long way toward healing the hurt that the Armenian Canadian
community feels.
I will speak a little later about how that hurt was aggravated
not so long ago by the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he
treated a question about the Armenian genocide in a very cavalier
way.
Not only do I not understand the Canadian government's
reluctance, but I do not understand the Turkish government's
reluctance to accept that the Armenian genocide can be called a
genocide without having the consequences that apparently the
Turkish government would want the Canadian government to believe
and without having the consequences for Turkey that the Turkish
government would want people to believe.
This was something that was done a long time ago by the Ottoman
empire. I do not believe that current regimes should be held
responsible for what happened a long time ago, unless of course
by their reluctance to call things what they were they seem to
assume a certain amount of responsibility in an indirect kind of
way.
I urge the Turkish government to drop its defensiveness and
realize that calling a spade a spade, calling a genocide a
genocide, is the beginning of a process of healing and
reconciliation which we would all like to see between the
Armenian community and the majority community in Turkey. This
would be the beginning of a process which, in the end, would be
of great benefit to their country. I urge that particular
perspective to be taken seriously.
I also note that not so long ago the Canadian government, with
respect to our involvement in Kosovo, was very quick to use the
language of genocide when it was describing the ethnic cleansing
that was going on in that community. It did not mind using the
word genocide to describe what was going on and why it wanted to
do something about it.
Why the reluctance to properly name something that went on a
long time ago which was clearly of the nature and the magnitude
that deserve the particular description?
It is sometimes said by the Turkish government that this was a
civil war as if that excuses things. Recently there was a civil
war in Rwanda. There was a struggle between the Hutu and Tutsi
peoples. The fact that it was a civil war did not prevent the
international community from saying that there was a genocide in
Rwanda. The fact that something has the nature of a civil war
does not mean that there are not things going on which also have
the nature of a genocide.
There may be a civil war in which many people of the same ethnic
or national community are killed and it does not qualify. It may
qualify as a tragedy, a slaughter, a murder and everything else,
but it does not qualify as a genocide. There may also be a civil
war in which one group seeks to exterminate the other and it does
qualify as a genocide. I submit the circumstances we are talking
about warrant the use of the term genocide.
Finally I refer to what was a very regrettable day in the House
of Commons. On April 25 my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas asked
the Minister of Foreign Affairs a question with respect to the
issue trying, as we have many times in the NDP and as have other
members of other parties, to get the Canadian government to use
the word genocide to acknowledge the Armenian genocide, and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs did not even answer the question.
He did not even address himself to the substance of the matter
at all. Instead he referred to a story in the paper that day
having to do with the participation of the hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas in the protest against the free trade area of
the Americas at the summit in Quebec City. He then made a joke
about something that had happened at that time, something he
should not have made a joke about anyway. The offence was even
further compounded in the sense that it had nothing to do with
the question that was asked.
1410
That would be bad enough in terms of parliamentary decorum and
procedure, and the fact that we would expect ministers to try to
pretend that they are answering the question. We know they often
do not answer questions, but at least they like to appear that
they are addressing the same topic, not the Minister of Foreign
Affairs.
When asked a serious question about the Armenian genocide, he
referred to something completely different. By so doing, he did
not just insult the House of Commons, he insulted the Armenian
Canadian community. He in effect made fun of and mocked the
concern that the member for Burnaby—Douglas expressed on their
behalf.
To my knowledge the Minister of Foreign Affairs has not made
amends for that offence against the House and the Armenian
Canadian community. I wrote to him today calling on him to do
so. I hope other members would do so as well. I certainly know
that the Armenian National Committee of Canada wrote to him to
express its dismay at the insult it felt on his behaviour that
day.
This debate could be carried on in a serious way, with serious
arguments on both sides, although I happen to think the argument
for using the word genocide is a much more serious and convincing
argument, than the rather weak arguments that we sometimes get
from the government side.
Thanks to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, we now have an
element introduced into the debate which is entirely unfortunate.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has the responsibility to clear
this up, to admit that he made a mistake and that his partisan
political nature got the better of him on that day when he
responded to the member for Burnaby—Douglas in a way that he
should not have. That would go a long way to healing the offence
that was committed that day.
The greater offence that we speak about here today is the
offence against the Armenian people that was committed a long
time ago. We say that offence was genocide and that is what the
world should call it. We say that would be the beginning of
reconciliation and that the Canadian government should use that
word sooner rather than later.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today to talk on the private member's motion
which is certainly an emotional one. I commend the member for
Brampton Centre for bringing it forth.
We are often criticized, as members of parliament and
politicians, that we do not do enough. This member has done a
great deal to speak on behalf of the members of his community,
protect their interests and try to take steps toward healing and
reconciliation, especially over the Armenian crisis which
happened between 1915 and 1923.
He is obviously deeply committed to this cause. I met with him
yesterday to talk about it, because I was not that familiar with
the issue. I wanted to get some direction from him. He spoke
strongly about healing and reconciliation, and how the
recognition that it was genocide would be a step in that
direction. I commend him for moving the motion.
I also commend him for his recent involvement with establishing
a national stamp in recognition of the Armenians. This is
entirely unique. No one can say that the member is not earning
his keep and doing his job. I have great respect for him and the
approach he takes to all his causes.
Obviously the events between 1915 and 1923 were terrible and
horrifying, resulting in the deaths of millions of people.
Certainly the Armenian people suffered greatly and more than
anyone else.
The Progressive Conservative Party is abhorred by any mass
slaughter or killings, or anything that could be termed genocide
by any country or any group, be it Rwanda or Europe. It is
important that we remember these issues, and this is exactly what
the motion has us all doing today. By discussing it, it will
maintain public awareness to maybe help the healing process and
reconciliation just by the fact that we have had this debate.
1415
We cannot go back and relive the era, or change it or change the
results. It is just a fact. However, there are things in this
motion that we totally agree with, and anybody could agree with
them.
One part of the motion is that we condemn acts of genocide as
the ultimate act of religious, racial and cultural intolerance. I
am sure that every single member of the House would agree to
that, even though the motion to pass it unanimously was just
turned down. This section and another section certainly would be
to recognize the importance of remembering and learning the
mistakes of history.
That is part of what we are doing here today; remembering some
of the mistakes of history and talking about them. Not all
parties agree exactly on the circumstances between 1915 and 1923.
We are here to talk about them. Many of us, myself included,
have learned a great deal from the debate. It is motions and
activities like this that will help us remember them.
The Government of Canada has the responsibility to voice the
Canadian human rights standards around the world and to take
these questions seriously.
The member for Winnipeg—Transcona mentioned earlier that the
Minister of Foreign Affairs did not treat a question about this
very serious issue with a great deal of respect. I too urge the
minister to rectify that. It is not his usual practice to treat
issues like that. Perhaps it was a moment of political weakness
or something like that, when he disregarded the question
presented to him. In my experience with the Minister of Foreign
Affairs that is not the way he would consider issues of human
rights and issues like this. I hope he will correct it.
I want to commend the member for his persistence in his ongoing
efforts and initiatives to support his Armenian causes and the
Armenian community. He has done a great job. We admire him for
very much for that.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my honour to speak today in the House of Commons.
Let me say from the beginning, whether we use the words calamity
or genocide, we should acknowledge that the government does take
this issue extremely seriously.
I want to thank the hon. member for expressing his views on the
events that took place affecting the Armenian people from 1914 to
1925. I congratulate the hon. member for Brampton Centre on
bringing this matter to the attention of the House.
Canada acknowledges and deplores the fact that many Armenians
and others lost their lives in wars that marked the end of the
Ottoman Empire. Millions were forcefully displaced under
terrible conditions, a situation that led to a large number of
deaths and caused indescribable suffering.
We sympathize with these Armenian victims and with their
descendants, many of whom have chosen to make a new life in
Canada. Canada opened its doors to many displaced people during
and after that period. We will continue our traditional practice
of giving humanitarian assistance to victims of conflicts in this
new century.
Following extensive consultation, the Government of Canada's
position on these events was articulated by the hon. member for
Halton on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in a June 10,
1999 statement to this Chamber. At that time the hon. member for
Halton said:
—we remember the calamity afflicted on the Armenian people in
1915. This tragedy was committed with the intent to destroy a
national group in which hundreds of thousands of Armenians were
subject to atrocities which included massive deportations and
massacres.
May the memory of this period contribute to healing wounds as
well as to reconciliation of present day nations and communities
and remind us all of our collective duty to work together toward
world peace—
Our remembrance of this calamity and the suffering of the
Armenian people has not, and will not, change.
The theme of reconciliation mentioned in the hon. member's
statement is one that bears repeating. The world looks to Canada
as a nation where people from diverse backgrounds can live
together in peace. Individuals from every conceivable nation and
ethnic group make up our country, and we have learned to respect
each other's culture, religion, race and ethnicity. We are
therefore able to empathize with the pain of those Canadians who
have at one time been victimized by bigotry and oppression.
Our experience as a nation of many peoples also enables us to
understand the importance of moving forward, while remembering
the lessons of the past. At home this means joining together, no
matter what our background, to ensure that bigotry and prejudice
are not tolerated.
1420
Every jurisdiction in Canada has enforceable human rights
legislation designed to combat discrimination in areas such as
employment, accommodation and the provision of goods and
services. This legislation is important, but legislation alone
is not enough. It must go hand in hand with a respect for the
unique human dignity of every individual.
Our diversity is also one of the country's greatest assets. The
strong foundation it provides has allowed us to build a Canada
that is vigorous and dynamic, a Canada which has been rated
consistently by the United Nations as one of the best places to
live in the world.
Internationally, our heritage allows us to help lead the way
toward a safer and more peaceful world. We can speak with
credibility on the need to protect people from threats to their
rights, their safety and their lives. We can fight for the
creation of an international criminal court and know we will be
listened to. We can sponsor a campaign to fight the scourge of
land mines and feel confident that we will be heard. We can
stand up in international fora, such as the United Nations, and
talk about the need for people from different backgrounds to live
together in peace with the knowledge that we speak from
experience.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to rise in the House and add to the debate.
I have a great deal of empathy for what the member is doing,
since this also has to do with the history of my family. I
suppose I cannot expect everyone to have heard everything I have
said in the House, but I have made reference to this before. For
those who have heard it before, I apologize for the repetition.
Only two generations prior to me my family suffered direct
persecution, mostly because of religious reasons in what my
grandmother always called the old country. Several of my
grandfather's brothers were killed. Criminals came into the
villages at night and shot men and older boys who were able to
fight. Because they were participants in the revolution, they
were considered to be enemies of the revolution and were
therefore killed.
I have great concern about the fact that we should not in any
way minimize the magnitude of that type of human behaviour, where
people with guns and power ride roughshod over very basic rights,
even the rights to human life.
As a result of our family history, we have had what I would call
a privilege and an honour of having our son work in some of the
wartorn parts of the world, including Rwanda. He has told us
stories about some of the horrendous atrocities that took place
there, including the atrocities against children. The stories
are beyond imagination. It is almost evil to even think of some
of the things they did, let alone acknowledge that these things
happened.
In my support of what the member is saying, I believe it is so
important for us to raise awareness of the fact that human beings
are capable of doing these things to other human beings.
Hopefully by increasing that awareness, we will somehow increase
the level of conscience that would prevent people from doing
this.
I know in this case the member is speaking of the Armenian
people. What happened to them happened to a number of other
racial and religious groups around the world. Indeed, it
continues even to this day. I believe Canada should be one of
the primary players or interveners in stopping these activities.
There is little doubt in my mind that we are not doing anywhere
near what we could or should be doing. I know we have limited
resources, but we ought to be involved, not only in the
prevention, education and awareness side, but when it comes to
sending in our peacekeepers to stop this kind of activity.
1425
I commend the hon. member for raising yet another example in
human history in which these kinds of atrocities have taken place
and for increasing awareness of them so that we do what we can to
stop them in the future.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank all members who joined
in the debate, especially those who expressed themselves in a
positive way. I did not hear anybody objecting to it, but I
cannot say the support was 1,000%. However I am quite happy with
the content of the speeches delivered in the Chamber regarding
Motion No. 285.
I will read a message the Armenian community received on April
24 from the Prime Minister. The message stated:
I am honoured to extend my sincere greetings to all those
participating in the activities commemorating the 86th
anniversary of the calamity suffered by the Armenian community.
Canadians recognize and deplore the demise of such a large
number of Armenians during the turmoil of the First World War and
its aftermath. Many survivors subsequently immigrated to Canada,
and the contributions they and their children have made to Canada
has greatly enriched our country. Let us thus be reminded how
important it is to work together to eliminate intolerance and
fanaticism wherever it appears.
Please accept my very best wishes.
It was signed by the Prime Minister of Canada. This is exactly
what the Canadian Armenian community is asking for. Victims and
survivors of the genocide and their children need a simple
recognition that yes, a genocide took place.
I admit it happened in the last century. It happened 86 years
ago in a place far away. However the Armenian genocide is the
only genocide of the last century that has not been officially
recognized as a genocide. Being the first, we would think people
would recognize it in order to set an example for others from
which to learn.
Even Adolf Hitler said “After all, who remembers the atrocities
of the Armenians and who shall remember what happened in World
War II to other minorities?” I regret that we did not learn
from history. It was repeated from 1939 to 1945. It has been
repeated since then in many parts of the world: Bosnia, the
Balkans, Africa, Cambodia, all over the world. Someone gave me a
figure that in the last century 95 million people died as a
result of crimes against humanity.
Basically my point is that 93.5 million were recognized and 1.5
million were left out. I have no answer when people ask me why
that is so, why everybody is recognized except the Armenian
people.
At one point on one day we as representatives of the people of
Canada must collectively come together to give the answer. We
must set history right for future generations so that we can say
proudly that the House spoke to the issue, spoke unanimously and
spoke the truth without being revisionist and without changing
history as it was in 1915.
As I said in my speech earlier, Deir ez-Zour is the Auschwitz of
the Armenian people. I have been there and I hope members will
get a chance to go to Syria and visit Deir ez-Zour so they will
recall the conversations we have had in the House today and in
previous years. I was hoping we would put an end to it today,
but we will continue. We look forward to co-operation and to
working together with the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of
Turkey. After all, these two countries are neighbours and must
live together.
My feeling was that Canada could play a positive role, but
without a recognition of genocide by Turkey and the G-7 countries
we cannot go forward and ask these countries to totally forget
the past.
Armenians are prepared to forgive. However in order for one to
forgive, someone must ask for forgiveness. We must go forward
from there. Mr. Speaker, if one is to ask for it, this is the
time.
I thank everyone for joining in the debate. I hope we continue
the discussion after we leave this place, because we did not come
to a conclusion. However I think it was a good exercise. I
congratulate everyone for joining in and debating the issue.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired. As
the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order
is dropped from the order paper.
[Translation]
It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday
next, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)