37th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 099
CONTENTS
Monday, October 22, 2001
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Strychnine Solutions |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay
(Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton
(Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan)
Implementation Act |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau
(Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Murray Calder
(Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. John Finlay (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey |
|
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the second time
and referred to a committee)
|
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Flu Awareness Month |
|
|
Mr. David Price (Compton--Stanstead,
Lib.) |
|
|
Jim Munson |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
National Sleep Awareness
Week |
|
|
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines,
Lib.) |
|
|
National Block Parent
Week |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East,
Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
UNICEF |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West,
Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Post |
|
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly,
BQ) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal,
Lib.) |
|
|
Sale of Poppies |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Public Service Awards |
|
|
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax,
Lib.) |
|
|
John Haidar |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair,
NDP) |
|
|
North Shore Economy |
|
|
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan,
BQ) |
|
|
Multiculturalism |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West,
Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West,
PC/DR) |
|
|
National Quality Month |
|
|
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
Joe Shoctor |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton
Centre-East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Anti-terrorism
Legislation |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
International Aid |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.) |
|
|
Health Canada |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Anti-terrorism
Legislation |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Communications Security
Establishment |
|
|
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Bill C-36 |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Humanitarian
Assistance |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
G-8 Summit |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Trade |
|
|
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Anti-terrorism
Legislation |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Water Contamination |
|
|
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Natural Resources |
|
|
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Forces |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Human Rights |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Highway Infrastructure |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Oral Question
Period |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Interparliamentary
Delegations |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior
North, Lib.) |
|
|
Fugitives From Justice In Other Countries
Act |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Cruelty To
Animals |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Kidney disease |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order
Paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Foreign Missions and International
Organizations Act |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden
(Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
[------] |
|
|
[------] |
|
|
National
Defence |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. John O'Reilly |
|
|
Airline Safety |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
|
Transportation |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk
(Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Monday, October 22, 2001
Speaker: The Honourable Peter
Milliken
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
* * *
(1055)
[Translation]
Business of the House
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Pursuant to Standing Order 81(14), it is my duty to
inform the House of the motion to be addressed tomorrow in studying the
business of supply.
[English]
That, as part of a continental
perimeter initiative to secure Canada's borders and protect the security of
Canadians and our neighbours, and to protect our trading relationships, this
House calls on the government to: |
|
(a) provide both Immigration officers and Customs
officers enhanced training and full peace officer status to allow them to
detain and arrest suspected criminals or terrorists at the border; |
|
(b) move Customs border officers out of the tax
collection agency and into a law enforcement agency; |
|
(c) detain all spontaneous refugee claimants appearing
without proper documentation until their identities are confirmed and they have
cleared proper health and security checks; and |
|
(d) create a list of safe third countries, including the
United States and member states of the European Union, from which Canada will
no longer accept refugee claimants. |
The motion standing in the name of the hon. Leader of
the Opposition is a votable motion. Copies of the motion are available at the
table.
[Translation]
It being 11.05 a.m., the House will now proceed to
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order
paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
(1105)
[English]
Strychnine Solutions
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance)
moved:
|
That
an Order of the House do issue for copies of all studies that were done prior
to the banning of the 2% and 5% solutions of strychnine to show the effect that
the banning of these solutions would have on Canadian farmers. |
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak once
again on behalf of Canadian farmers regarding the removal of 2% and 5%
strychnine which was very effective in controlling the tens of millions of
dollars of damage caused by gophers to farmers' crops and to livestock every
year.
The issue was first brought to my attention almost
immediately after I was elected in 1993. At that time, the government was
moving toward the removal of this product and many farmers were concerned. Many
municipal politicians brought the issue to my attention. I wrote a letter to
the minister of agriculture regarding the issue at that time.
My involvement in trying to get the 2% or 5%
concentrations of strychnine restored to farmers has been a long term one
indeed, spanning about 7 years now. I have had motions and bills and have done
what I have been able to do to force the issue. I would like to say that I have
perhaps had some success because at least this past summer there was an
emergency registration of this effective strength of strychnine in Alberta and
certain parts of Saskatchewan.
Obviously the issue has been pushed enough by municipal
politicians, reeves of counties, councillors, my colleagues from across the
prairies and farmers themselves to let government know they cannot afford these
losses. I would suggest that these tens of millions of dollars in losses a year
have been the final straw for some farmers and have led them to go out of
business. It has just been one thing too many that they have had to fight and
one loss too much. As a result, I have no doubt that some farmers have been
driven out of business and have lost their farms as a result of this order. It
is extremely serious.
I wrote a letter to the minister of agriculture back in
1994 asking why the product, which was so effective in controlling Richardson's
ground squirrels, commonly referred to as gophers, had been taken away from
farmers. I told the minister it would cost a lot of money and would cause
serious damage.
Later on I did get an answer to the letter but the
answer was not really substantial. Through the House, I then put a question on
the order paper for the production of papers and I did receive information on
the removal of the product. What astounded me was how little there was in these
papers. It was a stack of papers an inch thick but extremely few complaints
were made and yet the government decided to remove the product.
Thinking logically that could not have been the reason
the government made the decision to follow through on the removal of the
product, I assumed there must have been studies done by the department which
led to this decision being made.
The order I put on the order paper reads as
follows:
That an Order of the House do issue
for copies of all studies which were done prior to the banning of the 2% and 5%
solutions of strychnine to show the effect that the banning of these solutions
would have on Canadian farmers. |
I assumed that the complaints certainly would not have
sparked this so there must have been studies done. What we are debating today
are the studies that must have been done.
I did get an answer from the government and I was asked
to withdraw this motion. The answer reads as follows:
No studies were done on the effect
(economic impact) on Canadian farmers, of the withdrawal of the registration of
the concentrated strychnine solutions (2% and 5%) used by farmers to mix their
own 0.4% end-use products. |
I am sure the parliamentary secretary will stand up
today and ask why we are debating this when there have been no
studies.
(1110)
The reason is it is incomprehensible that this
decision, which has done so much harm to Canadian farmers, would be made based
on extremely few complaints and without study. Why would a government do this?
I believe that there has to be more and that I have not got received all the
goods.
I encourage the House to support the motion and I
encourage the government, in a very open way, to come up with the information
that actually led it to make this decision. The explanation is certainly not in
the papers I received.
I will start with a letter I wrote in February 2000 to
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, following other letters I wrote. My
letter said the banning of the concentration of strychnine effective enough to
kill gophers resulted in millions of dollars of losses for farmers who were
unable to control the gopher population.
I asked to be provided with the following information.
First, I asked for a clear comprehensive explanation as to why an effective
concentration of strychnine needed to be banned. As part of the explanation, I
asked to be provided with copies of documents and studies which were used as
scientific evidence that this effective concentration of strychnine needed to
be banned.
Second, I asked for studies that were done to show the
effect that the banning of an effective concentration of strychnine would have
on farmers.
Third, I asked who specifically was responsible for
making this decision to ban this strychnine because it was never clear from the
information I received.
Fourth, I asked how much money farmers had lost due to
crop losses, since the banning of an effective concentration of strychnine left
them unable to effectively control gopher populations.
The response to that was less than complete and did not
give an answer to the questions. I was left with information I received before
under a request for production of papers. Under the request, I a got a thick
stack of papers from the agriculture department that handled the request until
it was shifted to the health department.
I will go through a summary of what was in the stack of
documents that led to this decision, unless there is more. That is what I am
asking for from the government. I want it to tell me what more there is on its
decision to ban that effective tool for farmers.
The following complaints were found in the material.
There were complaints logged with Agriculture Canada by the Association for the
Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals. That consisted of five letters with the
names removed of course, to Agriculture Canada, and they concerned wolves.
There are no wolves in most areas in prairies where strychnine is used, so is a
little difficult to see the connection.
There were other letters from Sheila Burgess and Cindy
Hunter to Agriculture Canada, again mainly concerning the welfare of
wolves.
Some of the letters referred to the same magazine
article. In other words, it seemed that these letters were written mostly as a
result of this article which said that the strychnine used to control
Richardson's ground squirrels or gophers was killing the wolf population as
unintended targets. There were also concerns expressed that strychnine should
not be banned.
In terms of the information in the stack of papers that
I received, that was what I got. The decision to ban strychnine was based on
that, unless the government was not forthcoming in the information it sent to
me. It is one or the other.
There were also concerns expressed that strychnine
should not be banned. It was not a lot, but this was done in about 1995 or
1994. It was quite early in the process. Letters from the reeve of the rural
municipality of Hamiota, the vice president of the eastern region of Able Pest
Control, that made the product, and my first letter of 1994 were included in
the documents. There was also a letter from the administrator of the rural
municipality of Shellbrook, Saskatchewan.
(1115)
There were no complaints made to provincial
governments, at least there were no complaints which were included in this
material. Maybe there was some reason why the agriculture department did not
include complaints from provinces. I would not know what that would be. That is
what I received.
It seems the decision to remove this important tool,
which has caused farmers tens of millions of dollars in losses every year, was
based on that. I believe the tens of millions of dollars would be an extremely
low estimate of the damage done to farmers. I have a lot of reasons for
believing that.
Some farmers have taken the time, along with some
provincial government officials, to prepare an estimate based on examining
their particular pastures or their crops. They have looked at the damage done
and have put a dollar figure to it. The numbers for these individual farmers
were astounding, and I am talking about a lot of loss for particular farmers.
These farmers have been left without an effective tool to control gophers.
In fact, a study looked at the effectiveness of
premixes of strychnine which were available still through municipalities or
through various retail outlets. That chart showed that these premixes were very
ineffective.
One study showed that only 11% of the gophers were
controlled through use of this premix product. Another showed that even with
three consecutive applications of this premix product, it only controlled about
50% of the gophers, leaving 50% to continue to do the damage.
I guess people who have not been involved in this would
not understand all of the labour that goes into each application of strychnine
to control gophers. It is extremely labour intensive. To do one 60-acre pasture
could take a full day of heavy physical work. Many farmers have hundreds and
thousands of acres infected now because of the removal of this
product.
The damage is enormous. The reason for removing this
product is hard to understand. I am asking today for the government to provide
information that it has not provided because there must be more. I do not
believe that any governmental department would remove a product based on this
information. There has to be more.
What I want to see from the government is the
production of all the information that led it to make that decision because it
is an important issue to farmers who have crop losses due to not having this
product. It is an important issue to cattlemen who have animals injured due to
gopher holes and the badgers digging in after them. Animals have suffered from
broken legs and that type of damage. Horses have had to be put down because
they have broken a leg in one of these badger or gopher holes. Also people have
sustained injuries because of this.
All of this results from the removal of a product.
There just has to be more. I ask the House to support my motion. Most of all,
what I am really asking for is to have this product returned to farmers. All
the work I have done has been done for that reason. Let us bring this product
back so farmers have access.
We had an emergency return of this product last summer.
Let us just deal with this, say yes, that we will return this to farmers so
they can deal with this serious gopher problem and that we will do it before
next summer.
Farmers have told me that they are more than willing to
take a half day course, if they have to, on how to use this product safely.
However, many do not understand why they would have to because they have used
it safely for decades with really very little evidence of any non-target
species being harmed.
(1120)
What I really want is the return of this 2% or 5%
solution of strychnine so that farmers can do the job. If the government feels
it is necessary to have a training course, farmers are more than willing to
take it. So let us get on with it and have the product returned.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lakeland has
questioned why Canada's then regulatory body, Agriculture Canada, did not carry
out impact studies prior to its withdrawal of liquid strychnine concentrate
from the market in 1992.
The fact is, no significant economic impact on farmers
was anticipated as a result of restricting access to liquid strychnine
concentrate products.
And no impact study done at that time would have
uncovered any evidence that farmers' economic well-being would be adversely
affected. Farmers would continue to have the same level of pest control to
combat ground squirrels, commonly known as “gophers”, after the liquid
strychnine concentrate was withdrawn as they had when it was
available.
This was a reasonable assumption to make, because there
were similar, yet safer ready to use products available on the market, ones
that offered an equivalent or greater amount of strychnine compared to bait
prepared from liquid concentrate products.
It was only several years after the discontinuation of
liquid strychnine concentrate that evidence began to emerge that there were
problems involving the effectiveness of the ready to use baits.
Therefore, in 1992 it was reasonable for the government
to expect that the withdrawal of liquid strychnine concentrate would not pose
an economic hardship on farmers, beyond some slightly increased costs to
strychnine users who previously had used their own grain for bait formulation.
It was also reasonable, and in keeping with its responsibility for safeguarding
the health and safety of Canadians, and their environment, for the government
to take action on liquid strychnine concentrate.
Strychnine is, after all, a highly toxic product that
has been associated with poisonings of non-target species, including pets,
wildlife and possibly humans.
The government's expectation that the discontinuation
of liquid strychnine was a reasonable and prudent step was based on the
Department of Agriculture's two years of consultation, through the Western
Forum and the then Canadian Association of Pesticide Control Officials, with
agriculture and wildlife control officials in Alberta, British Columbia,
Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
During that consultation period, no serious economic
effect on the farm economy of the west was foreseen as a result of the
disappearance of liquid strychnine concentrate; if there had been, then an
economic impact study would undoubtedly have been done.
As was explained to the hon. member for Lakeland and
this House during the debate on Motion No. 13 held on September 19, it has been
verified through analysis that the concentration of strychnine found in today's
ready to use products is very similar or actually greater than that found
previously in baits prepared on the farm by mixing the liquid strychnine
concentrate with farm available grain.
Since the strychnine present in the ready to use bait
has been clearly shown to be of a concentration adequate for the control of
gophers, it was suggested that other factors, such as baiting procedures,
environmental conditions affecting the bait itself and lack of palatability
might be responsible for poor performance of the ready to use strychnine
baits.
To investigate these factors, the PMRA in 2000 and 2001
granted research permits to Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, or
AAFRD, to assess the efficacy of various baits against gophers. These baits
included those made from 2% strychnine concentrate, the standard ready to use
bait made with oats, and bait made from more palatable substances such as
canary seed.
Bait freshness and the type of bait seem to be
important considerations in achieving good bait uptake and successful gopher
control. Plans for a definitive comparison study to settle the question of
whether a freshly mixed canary seed bait would be the most effective bait are
currently being discussed with the provinces.
When the gopher problems in some parts of Alberta and
Saskatchewan became so serious this past summer that the provincial governments
requested emergency registrations to allow them to use the liquid strychnine
concentrate, the PMRA granted these registrations.
Mindful of the risks associated with liquid strychnine
concentrate, the registrations were for one season only, and the availability
and use of the concentrate was highly restricted. An access program was put in
place that allowed only agricultural fieldmen, in Alberta, or pest control
officers, in Saskatchewan, to sell and distribute the liquid strychnine
concentrate.
On November 16, the PMRA will meet with Alberta and
Saskatchewan pesticide regulatory officials to review the further results of
research and to assess the program that allowed restricted access to the
strychnine concentrate during this summer's emergency registrations of
strychnine.
(1125)
Officials will discuss whether the access program
worked, whether it provided reasonable availability, while mitigating any
possible adverse effects of using liquid strychnine concentrate. Another topic
to be discussed at this meeting will be the use of currently registered
alternative products to strychnine.
I believe that the government has taken a justifiably
cautious approach to making the liquid concentrate of strychnine available,
given the nature of this poison. Strychnine has a very high acute toxicity. It
acts quickly on the central nervous system,often causing violent convulsions
which eventually lead to death through respiratory failure. And there is no
effective antidote for this poison.
Canada is not alone in having taken action on
strychnine. All above ground uses of strychnine have been prohibited in the
United States since 1988. It is illegal to use strychnine for pest control in
most European countries and its use is prohibited by the Berne convention on
the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats.
In closing, I would like to refer to a concern that
several members raised in their speeches during the September 19 debate on
Motion No. 13. They wondered why a product that utilizes ammonia to control
gophers cannot be made available to farmers as quickly as possible as an
alternative product to strychnine.
Members may be interested to know that a pre-submission
consultation has taken place between the PMRA and the potential applicants in
order to help the applicants submit a complete and correct application to
register their product. As a next step, the agency is now considering exactly
what type and how much information will have to be generated in order to
support the registration of a pest control product based on ammonia. Although
ammonia is a widely used commodity already registered under the Fertilizers
Act, the PMRA must, under the Pest Control Products Act, ensure that a product
presents no unacceptable risk to health or the environment before it can be
registered for use as a pest control product in Canada.
I want the hon. member from Lakeland to be assured that
the Canadian government has acted in consultation with affected provinces and
stakeholders in the matter of restricting the availability of liquid strychnine
concentrate for use in the formulation of strychnine baits on farms. With their
co-operation it has moved to protect the health and safety of Canadians and
their environment, and is equally committed to finding the means to help
resolve the problem of gopher infestations in our western farmers'
fields.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay
(Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address request P-3 for
the tabling of documents, submitted by the Canadian Alliance member for
Lakeland, which reads as follows:
That an Order of the House do issue
for copies of all studies that were done prior to the banning of the 2% and 5%
solutions of strychnine to show the effect that the banning of these solutions
would have on Canadian farmers. |
Let us first look at the background for this issue.
Strychnine is a pesticide that helps, among things, control gophers that attack
crops in western Canada. It seems that the product used by farmers is effective
provided it contains 2% to 5% of strychnine. However, this product is also
criticized because of its harmful effects on water, air and soil. Moreover, it
is said to also threaten the health of animals that are not pests and of human
beings.
In 1992, the federal government restricted, through
regulations, the use of liquid strychnine by Canadian farmers. Now, they can
only use a concentrated premixed liquid version of the product that contains a
maximum of 0.4% of strychnine.
The Canadian Alliance member for Lakeland is very
interested in this issue. He tabled Motion No. 13, which was debated in the
House for one hour. That motion asked the government to compensate farmers for
damage done to livestock and crops by gophers resulting from the banning of
effective concentration of strychnine, thereby removing the ability of farmers
to control gophers on their lands.
On March 28, 2001, he tabled Bill C-321, an act to
amend the Farm Income Protection Act (crop damage by gophers). I am taking this
opportunity to say that the French translation should be revised. While we
could write the term “gaufre” with the letters “ph” instead of an “f”, it would
be best to choose a more appropriate term.
Indeed, the English term “gopher” was translated in
French by “gaufre”, which is “a crisp pancake cooked between two hinged metal
pans with a grid pattern” and which is often eaten with maple syrup but, I
might add, without strychnine. We are a long way from the ground squirrels
called gophers, which are rodents causing the same damage as our groundhogs in
Quebec.
Finally, our colleague, the hon. member for Lakeland,
is asking that certain studies that the federal government has in its
possession be made public. These studies, which were done prior to the
strychnine ban, could reveal that the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
banned this pesticide knowing the devastating effect that such a measure would
have on western farmers' crops, yet took no steps to compensate
them.
The Bloc Quebecois therefore supports this request for
documents. The government that has been running this country since 1993 suffers
from acute secrecy syndrome. And the debate over this request is an opportunity
for me to highlight the federal Liberal government's chronic lack of
transparency.
Every day, democracies are tempted to take the secret
way out. These democracies, which are accused of being slow, view secrets as an
easy way to speed things up, as a sort of pragmatic art, which cuts short
futile discussions. The temptation is understandable. What is less
understandable is that so many democrats fall victim to it, because democracy
loses its meaning the moment it loses its transparency.
This government, which promised during the 1993
election campaign to be transparent in managing the affairs of the state,
probably has the worst dirty habit of hiding things in the entire political
history of this country. These are a few examples.
I would like it if the hon. member for Joliette could
tell us himself how many times he had to rise in the House to ask the
government to make public the FTAA texts. It took us a long time to get
them.
(1130)
When the multilateral agreement on investment, the MAI,
was involved, once again no documents were forthcoming. It took a leak via the
Internet, originating with the government of France and certain individuals
with a strong interest in the matter, before we could finally get our hands on
a document, and it was absolutely abominable. Negotiation of this agreement had
to be abandoned.
As for the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement,
which we have just experienced, that most recent agreement, namely Bill C-32,
we were again asked to pass it without seeing the texts. We are presented with
them, but once again we are confronted with a fait accompli. Once again, we are
being asked for a blank cheque. We were not consulted at all on the discussions
relating to the agreement.
Going back a little in time, hon. members will recall
the sad story of the contaminated blood. After creating a commission of inquiry
into contaminated blood, the federal government did its utmost to stop the
commission from unearthing the full story and naming names.
Let us also recall the Minister of Finance's budget
surplus. Once again, there was a whole set of secrets that had been
systematically concealed since the government found the path to a balanced
budget.
Let us recall the secrecy surrounding the location of
transgenic crops in Canada. Ottawa refuses to reveal the location in one or
more provinces where there are experimental GM wheat crops. The Canadian Wheat
Board has attempted to obtain a list of these from the Canada Food Inspection
Agency, but to no avail.
Let us recall the Access to Information Act, which is
nothing more than a toothless watchdog. This act, which is supposed to
guarantee access to any document of public interest is as full of holes as
Swiss cheese, and totally ineffectual against the Liberal government's
propensity toward secrecy. This is why there are complaints from both
journalists and MPs, both in opposition and in government. Even the information
commissioner is very concerned.
The Liberal member for
Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot decided he had had enough of the way
the present government was treating the Access to Information Act. He feels it
is far too easy for the government and departmental officials to conceal
information of a public nature.
But the bad example comes from the top. In his annual
report published in March 2001, Information Commissioner John Reid said that he
himself no longer had access to certain documents considered secret. According
to the report, the Prime Minister and his closest advisers and ministers keep
on ignoring the Access to Information Act. Worse still, the member for
Saint-Maurice will not allow the commissioner to see his agendas and has gone
all the way to the supreme court to prevent Mr. Reid from doing so.
This sort of attitude at the top encourages the entire
bureaucracy throughout the country to make the commissioner's life difficult by
putting up fierce resistance to requests, said the same report.
The Prime Minister fell back on this “secret way out”
when he refused to testify regarding the demonstration staged in Vancouver for
the arrival of the president of Indonesia, thus putting a lid on an essential
element of the investigation--whether or not the order to the police to use
force came from his office. Doubt breeds mistrust, and all politicians are
paying the cost of this lack of transparency.
The Bloc Quebecois finds it unacceptable that the
government is behaving in this way, when it had promised the public
transparency. The member for Lakeland is calling for the release of documents
which would, to a certain degree, compromise the previous government, because
the decision was taken in 1992. It would not cost much to release the
documents, but it would fulfill one of the 1993 election promises regarding
transparency.
(1135)
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I rise again to speak to the issue of
Richardson's ground squirrels, commonly referred to as gophers in the farming
communities of Brandon and Souris in southwestern Manitoba
I spoke to this issue shortly after it was put on the
floor as Motion No. 13 under private members' business. At that time I
suggested and received agreement from most members on this side of the House
that all private members' business should be votable. Had Motion No. 13 been
made votable it would probably not have precipitated the issue returning to the
House in this form.
I congratulate the member for Lakeland for bringing it
forward under Standing Order 97 as a motion for the production of papers. It is
an issue that he obviously sees as being very important, not only in his
constituency but particularly in Canadian agriculture. It is a way to bring
forward the issue again to hold the government accountable and to have a vote
on a particular motion for the production of papers.
As the member has indicated the government has
demonstrated that there are no studies and papers to be tabled and therefore
the member should withdraw his motion.
I find it interesting that a decision of this magnitude
could be made when hundreds of scientists involved in these types of decisions
with the federal government have not put forward any justification for making
this change. I have the order that was put into place on December 22, 1992.
There are some backgrounders that indicate why the change was necessary. It
went from a 5% strychnine solution down to a 0.4% solution, which has been
proven to be terribly ineffective if not useless.
We have the order, but I am sure there had to be in
some way, shape or form a justification of why this order was put forward. That
is all the member is asking for. He is asking the government under production
of papers to give us the studies that were put forward and used as background
information to make this final decision.
It is not that difficult as was mentioned by the member
from the Bloc. It seems we have grave difficulty in trying to get information
out of the government on this side of the House. I do not understand why the
government is afraid to give this information out.
This is a very simple matter. It is not that difficult.
Let us see the backgrounder and the reasons justifying why that decision was
made. Let us vote for the motion for the production of papers and let us see
the studies. If in fact the studies support the final decision, the member
would be the first to stand in his place and accept that. However, how can we
accept that when we do not have any understanding of the decision making
process of government scientists?
Access to information is a tool that we use. I use the
analogy between access to information and the motion for the production of
papers before us. We depend on access to information to generate information
from the government. When we get information it is censored to the point where
it is useless. A government must be open and transparent to generate the
confidence of the people which it governs. I find that the accountability and
transparency of the government are becoming eroded day after day.
I have a suggestion for the government. This is not a
matter of politics but a matter of understanding why decisions are made. The
government should be more forthcoming with information, and this is a prime
example. Everybody should stand in their places when the vote is called and
make sure this motion for the production of papers is voted on favourably, so
the government will come forward with the necessary documents.
(1140)
I thank the member for bringing the motion forward. The
issue is serious and I do not want anybody to think that it is frivolous by any
stretch of the imagination.
Coming from western Canada, I do not think anybody can
understand the real issue with respect to a gopher population that is out of
control. It seems to propagate the Richardson's ground squirrel or gopher
population in areas where we have had drought this year. Farmers are looking
for an alternative method to control this terrible rodent infestation.
One of those methods is and always has been a 5%
strychnine solution. Unfortunately that is not available to farmers right now.
Until we come up with something more environmentally friendly and more
effective in controlling the pest itself, we have to look at other
alternatives. That is why the member has been very vocal in his support of this
issue. I thank the member once again for bringing it forward.
Mrs. Carol Skelton
(Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I support my colleague from Lakeland in
his request for information on the studies of strychnine that led to the ban of
the 2% and the 5% varieties of strychnine poison used against the Richardson's
ground squirrel or gopher.
I spent the weekend in Ottawa and in my area of the
city I noticed a tremendous number of squirrels. The little fellows were
gathering nuts and burying them. I did not get that close to them, but I want
to compare them to Richardson's ground squirrels or gophers.
Tulips were planted this weekend on Parliament Hill. If
each one of those little Richardson's ground squirrels ate a tulip it would be
a problem in the city of Ottawa. If we look at one pasture in Saskatchewan or
Alberta gopher holes are as close as the tulips that were being planted.
Members should imagine the kind of devastation that is created for a farmer,
rancher or whoever owns a property where gopher holes are as close to each
other as those tulips.
The hon. member talked about badgers. Badgers move in
and create huge holes that cause extra problems because wildlife falls in them.
There are fawns, antelope, horses and cattle with broken legs. This creates
economic problems for the farmer or rancher.
My colleague from Lakeland is only asking for
information from the government proving that studies were done before
strychnine was removed. All that we have received are seven letters. The
government removed a product from the market, which is causing great hardship
to Alberta and Saskatchewan farmers.
The Government of Canada and the provinces compensate
agriculturalists if they have waterfall damage or if deer and elk cause
problems on their farms.
Concerns have been raised regarding the impact on other
wildlife and the use of strychnine. A fox, wolf or coyote would have to consume
40 to 50 gophers or poisoned animals at one time to be affected. There are also
concerns for birds picking at the gophers. They would have to consume
approximately 5 to 15 animals. Any of the birds at home could not consume one
gopher let alone 5 to 15 of them to be affected. I have concerns about that.
We want the studies and the information. The hon.
member for Lakeland wants to know what kind of studies were carried out by the
government.
The Richardson's ground squirrel has become an epidemic
on the prairies. The gopher or the Richardson's ground squirrel is very well
known. The mascots of the Saskatchewan Roughriders are gophers. Gainer and
Leonard are the most popular thing on the field in Saskatchewan right now
because our football team is having a hard time, but we love the gophers.
Gainer and Leonard can be pests at football games because they tend to sneak up
behind people and scare them, and they make a lot of noise when we score a
touchdown. However the real pests are a great concern to Saskatchewan farmers.
(1145)
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of
Health said that there are products on the market to control these pests. There
are no products at all on the market to control the Richardson's ground
squirrel, therefore we are asking for help. There is no proof that non-targeted
animals have died because of the use of strychnine. The information from the
hon. member for Lakeland showed that the animals that lost their lives were
targeted by criminal activity. If there is scientific, absolute proof, we would
like the government to release those findings.
We looked at the economic problems that a gopher can
cause. We said that 123 gophers, and this has been studied, can consume up to a
tonne of feed, which translates into damages of $15,000 to $16,000 per quarter
of land. Total losses to farmers are reaching into tens of millions of dollars
in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is a huge problem.
In studies that were done by the Alberta Cattle
Commission, and this was another thing that the hon. secretary brought up, in
regard to the use of strychnine, the commission used test markets and the
values that they were supposed to use. There were eight tests. In one test, it
was as low as 11% effective. That is what they were doing in Alberta. For the
highest number ranchers had to do three applications of the strychnine mixture
and the result was 75%.
Imagine planting those tulip bulbs on a quarter section
of land or 160 acres or tens of thousands of acres like a lot of our ranchers
have and going into a field with a little bucket of strychnine and oats and
dropping it down a gopher hole over and over. I should have counted how many
people were planting tulips out in front of the building this weekend. Imagine
one farmer or his family out covering let us say 10,000 acres with a bucket of
oats. It just does not work. We are not getting effective and real progress
from the government in getting help for western Canadian agriculturalists.
We are asking for information, and that is what the
hon. member for Lakeland is asking for.
Farmers in Unity, Saskatchewan, have created a
gophinator which will look after the gopher problem. It uses anhydrous ammonia,
which farmers apply right across Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan every
spring. It is a fertilizer.
If I went out with my cultivator in the spring and
cultivated my pastures with an anhydrous tank behind my cultivator I could get
rid of the gophers, but who wants to cultivate pastures? One just does not do
that. It is not natural. If the gophinator could be patented and used properly,
that would be done.
I am just asking for the people in the House to approve
the hon. member for Lakeland's application for information. That is all we are
asking for. On behalf of farmers and ranchers in Alberta and Saskatchewan, I
ask that the House do that.
(1150)
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I too wish to give thanks to my hon.
colleague for his efforts in raising this issue. It is also a great problem in
my riding and we have had quite a number of people address it. Like all
problems, though, attention is required if we are to see any
solution.
During the last session of parliament I was privileged
to lay upon the Table petitions from my constituents and from a number of
others in Saskatchewan. There were approximately 300 signatures on the one I
had. According to an article in the National Post, farmers sent Ottawa a
petition of 5,000 signatures in total asking that they be allowed to use
concentrated liquid strychnine to battle an annual gopher infestation. The
animals have been causing trouble on Saskatchewan farmlands in growing numbers
since 1992 when Ottawa restricted the sale of the poison.
There is an interesting quote from the article. “The
poisons being purchased are just not effective”, says Sinclair Harrison, a
Saskatchewan farmer. “It makes the gophers sick but it does not kill them. We
don't want to see anything suffer”.
Not only is Sinclair Harrison a farmer, he also happens
to be the head of SARM, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities.
We will be saying more about that organization in just a moment.
Each of the prairie provinces is susceptible to
millions of dollars of damage. In fact the hon. minister, Mr. Vanclief himself,
at one time said that gophers--
(1155)
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
I am sorry to interrupt. We cannot refer to a member by
name. I would ask the hon. member to please use the member's title or
riding.
Mr. Larry Spencer:
The hon. agriculture minister made that statement. He
is also on record as saying that he has no evidence of this affecting the
Canadian economy because of the restrictions on strychnine. This is highly
debatable, as we are finding out today, because it has a great impact on our
Saskatchewan farmers. That is evident.
Of course strychnine poison is perhaps not the only
solution. The gophinator has been mentioned and I was interested to hear that
the hon. member across the way mentioned that they had to test to see if there
would be harmful effects from injecting anhydrous ammonia into the soil. It is
interesting to me that we can inject anhydrous ammonia into the soil to raise
our food, but when it comes to using it for pest control we have to make sure
it is okay. I do not get the logic. I do not really understand it but I guess
that is the way some people think.
There are some other chemicals or drugs that would kill
gophers, such as anticoagulants. They may be effective if repeated doses are
applied in a certain minimal length of time, that is, within two or three days.
Perhaps that would be better, but as my hon. colleague has pointed out who
wants to go back to all those holes over and over to make the necessary
applications? If we examine the evidence I believe we will discover that
strychnine is in fact the only truly effective way to control these
pests.
Each province has regulations for the use of
strychnine. We seem to be so worried about where it is going and what it may do
but these regulations are already in place. In Saskatchewan the sale of
strychnine is restricted to pest control operators, farmers or persons
authorized in government approved pest control programs. Only those people are
able to get it at all. They are held accountable and responsible. It seems to
me that there is a lot more accountability and responsibility placed upon the
people who would use strychnine for gopher poisoning than there is upon people
who use a lot of other things that are a lot more dangerous for the general
population of Canada.
The vendor of these products maintains a record of
sales and has the name, address and signature of the buyer along with the
quantity purchased. Detailed records are kept by the Saskatchewan Association
of Rural Municipalities, of which Sinclair Harrison, as I mentioned, is the
president. In Saskatchewan alone there are around 250 pest control officers,
one pest control officer for nearly each of the 297 rural municipalities, and
they are quite well trained in the use of strychnine.
However, one of the problems with the strychnine
poisoning method is that to be most effective it must be used at a certain time
of the year, pretty well no later than mid-March. As cute as these little
gophers are, they do not all come up out of the ground at one time. The first
ones up are the males. They stick their heads up, look around and see what is
on the horizon for the new spring. They come up one to two weeks ahead of the
females. The females begin to awake from hibernation and stick their heads up
and poke around. When the level of female gophers is high enough, that is when
the chemical needs to be put down. It needs to be put down early in the year,
before we have hundreds more little gophers later on. There can be five to ten
gophers in a litter. For effective control, it must be done at a certain
time.
(1200)
We are having trouble at the municipal level in getting
the supplies on time. There needs to be a distribution system that would get
them there on time. This would include strict control methods as to how they
are stored, proper training for those who use them and those kinds of things.
These things need to be done. There is no reason we cannot be prepared and have
that ready.
The government needs to have some sort of assigned
mechanism in place and enter into talks with the municipal governments on how
these kinds of things can be put in place and controlled. The government needs
to talk to cattle organizations and various farm organizations to reflect their
concerns and implement appropriate measures to control the increasing costs
gophers are afflicting on our farm economy.
There is no direct pipeline held season after season to
handle these kinds of things. Nonetheless these are problems that can easily be
addressed. They need to be if that is the only way we have of controlling the
gopher population.
It seems the government would want to know what the
effects of the restriction on strychnine are. We are asking that this
information be put out. If we need to find other solutions then the government
should know that. This is a drastically increasing problem.
My hon. colleague mentioned gophers popping out and
taking down all the tulip bulbs. I was here a few days ago when we had the
memorial service for the police officers and firemen who lost their lives. I
was wondering what would happen if the front lawn contained the population of
gophers required to get all those tulip bulbs. Let us think of all the holes.
How many of those firemen and policemen would have been injured, like our
cattle are, by falling into the holes as they marched through the parade
grounds blowing their bagpipes?
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this issue is of grave concern to western
Canada. The government has totally ignored the loss of millions up to billions
of dollars. If people in the west lose their crop as a result of deer or elk
they are paid for it. If they lose their crop because of water fowl they are
paid for it. This year on the prairies more crops were lost to gophers than any
other thing yet the government came out with something that did not kill the
gophers. As I said in the petitions I read in the House, if anything it made
them more virile.
It is time we did something about this other than just
getting the papers back. Let us be armed next spring so we can at least have a
chance in this infestation to grow a crop.
(1205)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
It being 12.05 p.m., the hour provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is
dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan)
Implementation Act
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-37,
an act to facilitate the implementation of those provisions of first nations
claim settlements in the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan that relate to
the creation of reserves or the addition of land to existing reserves, and to
make related amendments to the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act
and the Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement Act, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on
Bill C-37, the claim settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) implementation act.
I welcome the opportunity to inform hon. members about the intent of Bill C-37
and explain how it fits into the government's broader aboriginal
agenda.
Members will recall that the recent Speech from the
Throne committed the government to strengthening Canada's relationship with
aboriginal people, supporting aboriginal governance and bringing the benefits
of prosperity to aboriginal communities. We are also implementing the pledges
made in “Gathering Strength--Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan”, Canada's
response to the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples.
Bill C-37 is another important step in these ongoing
processes, one of many we will take in collaboration with aboriginal people and
other stakeholders in the coming months and years.
The proposed legislation addresses a number of goals
set out by the government including, most fundamentally, fulfilling our
historical obligations to aboriginal peoples to live up to the promises that
have been made not only by our government but by others before us going back
200 years or more.
Bill C-37 is about strengthening the capacity of first
nations governments to make decisions about their lands and communities. It
would give them additional tools to pursue economic development opportunities
that would generate jobs and income for first nations people. In this way Bill
C-37 would protect and enhance the rights of other parties and lead to
partnerships between first nations communities and private sector interests
throughout the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Although the proposed legislation is somewhat technical
in nature, its objective is simple: to facilitate the transfer of lands to
reserve status in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Our goal is to improve existing
processes which lead to uncertainty and missed opportunities for all parties
and which can be unnecessarily time consuming and cumbersome.
Hon. members will be familiar with the rationale for
the legislation from the debate respecting part 2 of the Manitoba Claim
Settlements Implementation Act which was passed by the previous parliament.
Bill C-37 would essentially extend the Manitoba process to the other two
prairie provinces.
To put the issue into perspective, hon. members should
be aware that the Government of Canada has numerous outstanding commitments to
provide additional reserve lands to first nations in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
These commitments have arisen out of two types of settlement agreements. Treaty
land entitlement settlements are intended to address historical injustices
involving more than 30 first nations in Alberta and Saskatchewan that did not
receive all the land they were promised when they signed treaties.
Canada has also made commitments to expand reserve
lands as part of 13 specific claim settlements in Alberta and Saskatchewan,
most of which deal with alleged wrongs over the administration of first nations
lands or assets under the Indian Act.
The government has been working to implement these
settlement agreements for the past several years. We are making progress but it
is clear to everyone involved that we need quicker and better ways to add lands
to reserves. A million hectares, or 2.5 million acres, are yet to be added to
reserves as a result of claim settlements in Alberta and Saskatchewan. More
reserve expansion commitments are on the horizon as we continue to negotiate
treaty land entitlements and specific claims in both provinces.
There are two principal reasons for the current backlog
in reserve expansion commitments. First, in all provinces but Manitoba, thanks
to the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, creating reserve land
under claim settlements requires an order from the governor in council. First
nations have suggested that the process be streamlined. We agree with this
objective.
(1210)
More significant, however, is the need to accommodate
existing third party interests when processing land selections. Canada's
additions to reserve policy require that any such interests be either bought
out with the agreement of the third party or somehow accommodated in a manner
acceptable to Canada, the third party and the first nation. Only then could the
land be transferred to Canada and granted reserve status.
Bill C-37 addresses both these issues as the Manitoba
Claim Settlements Implication Act has done in Manitoba. First, Bill C-37 would
empower the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development rather than the
governor in council to grant reserve status to lands selected by Alberta and
Saskatchewan first nations under claim settlements. This would replace the
current process of obtaining an order in council and would shorten the time
needed to approve additions to reserves. This would in turn allow any economic
benefits associated with the lands to be more immediately realized by first
nations.
Second, and more important, Bill C-37 would streamline
the way third party interests such as leases or mineral rights are dealt with
in lands selected for additions to reserves under claim settlements.
The changes proposed in Bill C-37 would essentially
allow first nations in Alberta and Saskatchewan to agree to continue an
existing third party interest or negotiate a new one on such lands before the
lands became part of a reserve or were purchased.
This is not possible under the Indian Act. Although the
Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement Act provides a pre-reserve interest
granting power by way of what is called a designation, under that power first
nations can only agree to continue existing interests. They cannot accommodate
new development proposals that may arise while the land is being processed into
reserve status. Moreover, this power can be used only in relation to treaty
land entitlements and not to specific claims. It can be used only when the
first nation has already purchased the land.
The pre-reserve designation power contained in Bill
C-37 does not, I repeat, does not, have these limitations. The improved
pre-reserve designation power could be used for all Alberta and Saskatchewan
claim settlements and not just treaty land entitlements. It would give first
nations access to a broader range of land that has development interests or
potential. Because these lands could be selected and acquired more quickly, any
third party interest associated with them would contribute more quickly to
economic and social progress in the community.
These changes would obviously benefit first nations.
However I would ask hon. members to consider the issue from the other side of
the fence, so to speak. The new approaches set out in Bill C-37 would provide a
higher level of commercial certainty for all concerned parties, not only first
nations but private sector developers, land owners and people, companies or
institutions that hold interests in land in Alberta and
Saskatchewan.
Bill C-37 would enhance protection for third parties by
bridging the gap between non-reserve and reserve status for lands, thereby
avoiding potential interruption of access to or use of the lands. In other
words, the proposed legislation would provide businesses and investors in
Alberta and Saskatchewan with certainty of tenure for any third party interest
they might hold in lands to be added to a reserve.
Bill C-37 would also provide the certainty, stability
and predictability first nations and businesses needed to negotiate new
commercial arrangements and economic development partnerships. This is clearly
a win-win solution to the legal uncertainties and delays inherent in the
current process for adding lands to reserves.
(1215)
These new mechanisms to deal with third party interests
and the ministerial authority to grant reserve status are the major thrust of
the proposed legislation but I would like to bring a couple of additional
points to the attention of the House.
The first point is that individual first nations will
be able to elect whether or not to adopt the provisions of Bill C-37 in
relation to their claim settlements. For existing settlement agreements, all
that will be required is a simple resolution by the first nation council to opt
into the new processes.
Settlements negotiated after the legislation comes into
effect will need to state explicitly that the first nation wishes to adopt the
provisions of Bill C-37.
As well, it is important to note that this opt-in
provision will apply only on a settlement by settlement basis. In other words,
any first nation that has both a specific claim settlement and a treaty land
entitlement settlement must make a separate election for each settlement
agreement and is free to make a different election in each case. In this way
maximum freedom of choice is afforded to individual first nations.
As I noted earlier, Bill C-37 is modelled on the
recently enacted Manitoba Claim Settlement Implementation Act. During the
process of developing the current legislation, we saw an opportunity to bring
needed minor improvements to the language of the previous bill. Bill C-37
therefore proposes to amend the Manitoba Claim Settlement Implementation Act to
make these language improvements so that the two bills remain consistent with
each other.
The proposed amendments are minor in nature, either
removing a grammatical ambiguity or bringing precision to the post-reserve
administrative regime that would apply to third party interests.
These amendments have the support of the aboriginal
association representing Manitoba first nations most effected, namely the
treaty land entitlement committee of Manitoba which represents the 20 first
nations that are party to the 1997 treaty land entitlement framework agreement
for that province.
Similarly, Bill C-37 proposes related amendments to the
Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement Act of 1993. One amendment would ensure
that any agreement, past or future, to release the province of Saskatchewan
from its obligation to provide unoccupied crown land as part of a treaty land
entitlement settlement is expressly confirmed by the Saskatchewan Treaty Land
Entitlement Act.
As hon. members may know, this obligation dates to the
natural resources transfer agreement negotiated between Canada and Saskatchewan
in 1930. Saskatchewan was released from this obligation respecting certain
first nations in 1992 under the terms of the Saskatchewan treaty land
entitlement framework agreement and the Nekaneet treaty land entitlement
agreement, and this release was recognized in the 1993 Saskatchewan Treaty Land
Entitlement Act. We are simply extending this legislative confirmation to any
similar releases, whether given before or after the coming into force of this
act, which are concluded as a result of post-1993 treaty land entitlement
settlements in Saskatchewan.
Bill C-37 would also amend the Saskatchewan Treaty Land
Entitlement Act as it relates to the pre-reserve designation power I mentioned
earlier.
As I have noted, Bill C-37 would provide a similar but
improved mechanism for granting a third party interest in land before the land
has been set apart as a reserve.
The proposed amendments to the Saskatchewan Treaty Land
Entitlement Act would establish clear rules for determining which mechanism
will apply depending on the first nations' opt-in decision I alluded to
earlier.
I want to make it clear that Bill C-37 would not give
effect to any claim settlement in Alberta or Saskatchewan. Nor does Bill C-37
create new institutions of government, new regulations or new financial
obligations for Canada.
(1220)
The goal here is simply to ensure that claims
agreements, including those that may be negotiated in the future, can be
implemented more quickly and efficiently.
There is nothing contentious about this proposed
legislation. In fact it was developed in close consultation with the affected
stakeholders.
The underlying principles for the bill were first
discussed with first nations in Alberta in 1997 when Canada was negotiating
treaty land entitlement agreements with the Alexander First Nation and the Loon
River Cree First Nation.
It should be noted that Bill C-37 has since
specifically been endorsed by both of these Alberta first nations whose treaty
land entitlement settlements included commitments by Canada to recommend such
legislation.
Given the level of support for the proposed approach in
Alberta, our government seized the opportunity to make the same mechanisms
available to first nations in Saskatchewan.
To that end, we initiated discussions with the
Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and the government of Saskatchewan in
December 1999, and again we received a very positive response.
To broaden the consultation process, a draft of the
proposed legislation was distributed in February 2000 to all Alberta and
Saskatchewan first nations which currently have claim settlements with reserve
expansion commitments to implement.
The governments of both provinces as well as Alberta
treaty organizations and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations also
received this draft. An updated version was sent out in April of this year to
all these same stakeholders.
Some minor improvements have been made to Bill C-37
based on feedback received from these stakeholders. I am pleased to say that
the proposed legislation now has the full support of all parties from the
provincial governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan to first nations and their
treaty organizations in both provinces.
As I noted earlier, the minor amendments to the
Manitoba Claims Settlement Implementation Act are also supported by treaty land
entitlement first nations in that province.
Between them, the Manitoba Claims Settlement
Implementation Act and Bill C-37, will cover fully 97% of existing reserve
expansion commitments under claim settlements across Canada.
We are proceeding with the legislation in Alberta and
Saskatchewan for the same reason we went forward in Manitoba: we know a better
process is needed and there is strong consensus among stakeholders in these two
provinces that this approach is reasonable, responsible and
effective.
Bill C-37 would benefit first nations in Alberta and
Saskatchewan and would benefit third parties that hold interest in land
selected for additions to reserves under claim settlements in these two
provinces. It would also move Canada forward in fulfilling our outstanding
commitments to aboriginal people.
It is the right solution for everyone and I trust we
can count on the support of hon. members from all sides of the House in voting
to send the legislation to committee for review.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the minister
announce the bill. I wish we would have had a little time to take a look at it.
It was introduced last week and now it is Monday and it is here.
I think it is incumbent upon the minister to make sure
people understand the different terminology in the bill. I come from a rural
area where there are at least seven first nations. People understand the term
reserve but, other than the first nations people, they do not understand the
terms specific claims, additional land and so on.
The minister mentioned that Bill C-37 had the consent
or approval of the government and provincial governments. I want to say
something about the bill that will need to be mentioned in committee. Does the
bill have the understanding and support of local governments? In the past we
have run into some real difficulties, as the minister knows.
Let us say that 10 sections are added to a given
reserve. The taxes from those 10 sections would no longer be available to the
local government which would have that many fewer dollars to put toward road,
schools and so on.
The minister should be cognizant of this if he wants
clear passage and total acceptability of the bill. We need to do some work with
the local governments. I know that in Saskatchewan it is the Saskatchewan
Association of Rural Municipalities and the municipal governments at the places
from which the land is being extracted. We have a problem there.
We also have another problem. As most members know,
Saskatchewan and Alberta were not added to Confederation until 1905. While the
minerals in other areas remained with the land or purchaser thereof, in
Saskatchewan the minerals remained for the most part with the crown. I believe
the hon. member mentioned 1930. One of the difficulties we have, even in my
constituency, is that the minerals on lands in the eastern portion belong to
the crown. As immigration and settlements moved west after 1905, the minerals
went with the land when it was purchased.
Conceivably we would be adding 10 sections of land to a
current day reserve. Under the previous owner the minerals belonged to the
crown. The property owner did not have the minerals. As the property is moved
to a reserve the minerals will go to the crown and there could be some problems
with that.
I have some real concerns but not about the expansion.
I agree with the minister, I think most people in general want the treaties to
go forward, to get them out of the way and, for lack of a better word, to get
on with the show. Let us make this happen but in doing so let us make sure we
notify all partners and that everybody is aware of what is going on. That is
very necessary.
(1225)
To draw an analogy, my constituency had its first
anthrax scare way out in a rural area in a village with maybe 20 people.I do
not want to get into the details but they have never been told anything.
Nothing has gone out as to what to do, who to call or what to expect. There is
a lack of government information and explanation, a lack of printed government
policy, a lack of PR with the newspapers, particularly in the area concerned.
Those things are imperative.
I hope the minister will take my advice. As he goes
into the specific land claims and the addition to the reserves, he would be
well advised that people in that area have an understanding. Once there is an
understanding there is more apt to be agreement with what is going on. That is
necessary.
We will let the bill go to committee. We will support
it at this point. However I am quite sure that when the bill gets to committee
there will be a lot of questions. We will be asking questions not just on the
part of the first nations, but also on the part of local government.
Something has to be clarified. The first nations people
want to be called first nations. The result of mammoth research and, I believe,
the 1988 booklet was that they want to be called first nations. Throughout the
bill the minister refers to first nations, but the word Indian is still being
used. They no longer want to be called Indians. Throughout the Indian Act,
which we are going to look at, that word is used. Both terms are being used. We
should not be doing that. Let us be consistent in using one term.
Finally, let us hope that in committee we will allow
enough time to carefully look at not only the first nations people but other
people who are affected. We must carefully look at the rural municipalities or
other landowners who lose property or have the property consumed and what their
rights are and what provisions will be given to local governments so that they
may carry on their work. In the past in settling land claims the relationships
between the parties have soured in many of the rural municipalities in my
constituency and they remain that way today. Let us hope we can avoid that in
the future.
(1230)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau
(Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise to speak in this
debate. Bill C-37, the claim settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan)
implementation act, which the House is currently considering, is, as its name
indicates, intended to facilitate the implementation of territorial agreements
reached between the federal government and the first nations.
The bill is very technical and does not bear the usual
characteristics of the initiatives of the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, which tend to be rather controversial or at least to
cause some flurry. In fact, the minister appears to want to assume his
responsibilities fully and demonstrate the leadership needed to ensure the full
development of the first nations.
I have a hard time understanding why the Bloc Quebecois
would oppose quick passage of this bill, since the minister is finally
proposing constructive action in support of the first nations. The position the
Bloc Quebecois has taken on the bill is very much in keeping with the party's
line on the first nations' right to self-government.
I, in fact, recognize the minister's, or rather the
department's, openness. It seems now to be giving greater consideration to the
real needs and deep aspirations of the first nations.
As such, Bill C-37 facilitates the implementation of
land claim settlements, which we know are the result of long and difficult
negotiations designed to bring about greater self-government and increased
accountability for first nations.
It is important to point out that the legislative
measure being discussed today is limited exclusively to the results of the
negotiations in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Incidentally, similar legislation was
adopted one year ago concerning Manitoba.
Bill C-37 will considerably reduce the time required to
grant the lands negotiated real reserve status. Aboriginal people in these
areas would be able to use the legislation to accelerate the land transfer
process. This is a key element of the notion of self-government, as it would
allow first nations to benefit sooner from the natural resources on their
lands. Their economic space would be strengthened and everything seems to
indicate that the legislation would have a positive effect on these
communities.
In closing, while supporting this bill and hoping to
see it adopted speedily and efficiently, I would like to express my desire to
see the recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault report, made public in 1996 at
a cost of $50 million, adopted as quickly as possible to deal with the problems
plaguing the first nations in a comprehensive manner, as opposed to limiting
ourselves to a piecemeal approach.
The government must not limit itself to bills such as
this one, which deals with a specific part of the problem, but it must develop
a comprehensive policy and a clear direction to ensure that the recommendations
made by the Erasmus-Dussault royal commission be implemented as quickly as
possible.
(1235)
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, as the NDP caucus critic for aboriginal
affairs, I am pleased to join the debate regarding Bill C-37.
We welcome any measure that will speed up the
implementation process of the many outstanding claims and treaty land
negotiations that are under way. We recognize that in both the provinces of
Alberta and Saskatchewan there is an enormous backlog and an enormous level of
frustration on the part of aboriginal peoples, first nations communities and
other interested third parties in the tedious and painfully slow negotiation
process that has been under way for decades, if not centuries.
We recognize that Bill C-37 very closely resembles the
Manitoba act of a similar nature which was passed only last year. As a member
of parliament from Winnipeg I did seek advice from those parties that are
affected by the Manitoba settlement claims process. We got a positive report.
People are generally satisfied that what was implemented in Manitoba can and
should serve as a model for the other two prairie provinces as they address
very similar issues. I understand it will.
We note with interest that the minister for aboriginal
affairs pointed out that Bill C-37 addresses 97% of all the outstanding treaty
land entitlement negotiations and specific claims settlement negotiations which
are currently underway. We welcome that. If we can clear up 97% of the
unbelievable backlog, then when those administrative and bureaucratic details
are put behind us we can look forward to the day when aboriginal communities
can take real steps toward true self-government as contemplated in the
recommendations of the royal commission on aboriginal peoples.
The aboriginal affairs critic for the official
opposition failed to point out any of the specifics in the bill. It is
incumbent upon somebody in the House to deal with some of the substance and to
comment on the actual details surrounding the bill. I would have hoped that
someone in the official opposition would have read the briefing book and would
have gone through some of the specific details which people in the rest of the
country are very interested in.
For people who may be watching and for aboriginal
communities who realize that this is their day to have this issue dealt with in
the House of Commons, I would like to go through some of the details of the
bill. On behalf of aboriginal communities I will explain to the general public
what we are talking about when we introduce a bill that would result in the
addition of lands to reserves. I look to the manual that was provided to all
members of parliament which explains quite clearly under what circumstances the
federal government would seek to add to the land mass of reserves or to create
new reserves.
A lot of non-aboriginal people may feel that this
process was finished and done with at the turn of the century. Most of these
treaties were signed between 1874 and 1906. However, there are circumstances
under which for two reasons these lands are expanded by creating new reserve
lands or allocating new pieces of land to existing reserves. One is to meet
with the entitlement issue. The Indian Act specifies that based on the size of
a family or the size of a community a certain amount of land will be allocated
to that first nations community.
There are historic shortfalls. Some go right back to
the day of the original signing of the treaty and some because the size of the
community has grown and the land mass of the reserve no longer meets the needs
of the size of the community. These things need to be addressed. It could be to
address social concerns or another reason that is cited is to improve the
geographic integrity of a reserve.
(1240)
Some of these reserves were put together and mapped out
in a period of time when there was less understanding as to what the ultimate
usage would be of the first nations community, whether it was a geographical
barrier like a river or a mountain range or a social or a cultural barrier like
the development of industry in certain areas of a reserve. Those were not
accommodated between 1874 and 1906, and now there are good arguments why they
should be accommodated. That is another rationale under which we would improve
the geographic integrity of a reserve by changing its physical and geographical
shape.
Sometimes there is a need to compensate the first
nations communities for the public takings of reserve land. For instance, if a
bi-pole hydro-electric line was slated to go through reserve land, there would
be a loss of land usage directly underneath those wires and for a right-of-way
on both sides of those wires. This may constitute hundreds of thousands of
acres on that reserve property. We believe it would be only fair to compensate
that equal amount of land with usable land. This is another reason why we may
see a situation and why we believe there are righteous claims made to the
federal government to justify the expansion of existing reserves.
Finally, the rationale is to fulfill Canada's legal
obligations under a court order or the terms of a claim settlement with the
first nations relating to such matters as treaty land entitlements and specific
claims.
To answer the question from the member from the
official opposition who asked if non-aboriginal people in the community
understood why it was necessary to introduce legislation that would contemplate
expanding reserves and even creating new reserves, the rationale is cited in
the briefing book should he have the time to read it. That would be useful for
everybody concerned.
Not only should I point out what is in the bill in
terms of what enabling measures it gives the minister, but I should also point
out, for the comfort level of other people and of third parties who are
affected by these expansions of reserves, what is not affected in the proposed
legislation.
Again, to answer many of the questions raised by the
critic from the official opposition, perhaps for his behalf and for the sake of
people with legitimate concerns and to raise the comfort level of those who may
criticize the expansion of aboriginal and first nation communities, such as
rural municipalities, private property owners, third parties and non-aboriginal
people who are affected by the expansion of a reserve, let me cite some of the
things that are not affected by the legislation.
First, the bill would not automatically ratify any
claim settlements. It would simply put in place the enabling measures or a
process by which those settlements may be settled in a reasonable, fair period
of time instead of the undue lengthy, tedious process that we have come to
accept as the norm. The purpose of the bill is not to ratify these settlements
but to facilitate the process by which the reserve creation commitments of
these settlements can be implemented. That should address at least one of the
points that was raised by the hon. member.
Another question that legitimately should be asked
about the bill, and one thing that we can put to bed right now, is that no
expropriation of private land or interests is contemplated by the bill or
enabled by it. It does recognize that there are third party claims to land that
we may seek to make a part of a reserve. Sometimes there is competing and
compounding third party claims to resources or even the actual ownership of
land which we seek to use to expand reserves.
Again, the legislation does nothing to actually
expropriate any private land ownership. Third parties can take comfort in the
fact that we as the opposition party in the House of Commons recognize that
this is neither the intention nor the result of this legislation. In fact, we
will find within this legislation specific protection of third party interests
that did not exist before. Before we had to be subject to the vagaries of the
settlement in the courts, now there some accepted and predictable processes
under which a claim or a legitimate objection, as a third party, will be dealt
with.
(1245)
We should also point out that nothing in Bill C-37
deals or interferes with the taxation of on-reserve third party interests,
which is another legitimate concern that could be and should have been raised
by any critic of the bill. Having read the bill and the briefing books, we are
satisfied that the bill does not affect first nations' ability to tax
on-reserve third party interests. If it did, we would have to vote against the
bill.
I point these things out only because they are
predictable things that should and probably will be raised by people who
present before the committee or the general public who may be concerned that we
are taking steps in the House to expand the reserve system and to settle
outstanding treaty entitlement and specific claim settlements in the provinces
of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
We are used to hearing opposition to any steps that may
move forward the legitimate aspirations of first nations communities to achieve
self-government. It is a common theme that we in the NDP caucus have been
opposing for a number of years. We hope that people in the House of Commons can
set aside their biases and prejudices for or against, as is the case of the
official opposition, aboriginal first nations' self-government. We hope they
can see that the bill is not threatening in any way. It is an enabling measure
which would clean up a bureaucratic backlog of outstanding claims, and having
put those issues to bed, would allow us to deal with the more salient and
pertinent issue of true aboriginal self-government. We all look forward to the
day we can move on with that as well.
Some of the background information that was given to us
is helpful as well. We recognize that Bill C-37 is advantageous in another way
that was not pointed out by the official opposition. We note that the bill will
facilitate the selection by first nations of commercially viable lands rather
than simply lands that are encumbered by other interests. In other words, it
could be looked upon as an economic development tool. For those who are always
saying that aboriginal communities must become more self-sufficient, that they
must promote business and that they must get more with it regarding the
economic realities of Canada, the bill could enable first nations communities
to access lands that have economic development potential. This is a real plus
which we have not heard raised here before.
We are not saying that the only way we can expand the
reserve is by choosing land that borders or is close to the reserve which is
completely unused, unclaimed or undeveloped. It may result in choosing land
that has economic activity on it. We would then have to negotiate some kind of
compensation for the third party using the land. The land would then be
transferred within the first nation.
In closing, in Manitoba we find that the steps to
enable the process to move along more quickly has been quite a satisfactory
experience. We have no hesitation in recommending a similar model for the
provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I believe that 30 first nations will
benefit in the province of Alberta and as many as 16 in the province of
Saskatchewan, and 97% of the outstanding entitlement and specific claims can be
remedied and settled under this enabling process. That in itself is reason
enough for us to support it at second reading to go to committee.
(1250)
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the
member opposite. It is fair to say that he made some very excellent points with
respect to Bill C-37. I want to congratulate him for that.
I also want to congratulate the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development. Under his steady hand and leadership, he has
been able to bring this bill forward and make the kind of inroads and efforts
that are required in this all important area.
This is a very important area that deals exclusively
with reserve land proposals that arise under claim settlements, either existing
or in the future both in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. As such, it
is very important not only in those two provinces, but it sets the right tone
across Canada. The minister and the government need to be congratulated because
it underscores our commitment to do the right things in this very important
area.
As the opposition is saying right now to the minister
that he did a good job, I too want to add to that. I think it is excellent and
really well worth noting.
What would the member opposite scope out as being the
most important aspect of the bill? He referenced his own province and other
areas in the west. If we listened closely to what the member said, it was very
wise. Could he expound a little further on that and give us more insight?
Especially given the fact that he is from Manitoba and knows some of these
things, it would be insightful for us to hear a little more from the member for
Winnipeg Centre.
Mr. Pat Martin:
Mr. Speaker, as uncomfortable as I am with that kind of
introduction, I do not mind speaking a little longer about a bill in which I
see a lot of good qualities.
To take the hon. member's question seriously, the most
important single thing that Bill C-37 could do is alleviate the backlog of
unsettled claims that exist on the two prairie provinces so that we could use
our energy and resources in a more positive way and take serious concrete steps
toward the larger issue of aboriginal self-government. In other words, the
sooner we rid ourselves of these bureaucratic, almost nuisance claims, where we
have lawsuit piled upon lawsuit waiting for resolution. Ten, twenty or thirty
years go by, generations go by before first nations communities can avail
themselves of the land to which they are entitled by court order. However with
third party complications they simply cannot address it.
That would be the first single biggest advantage that I
see. In Manitoba we are managing to cut through some of that bureaucratic
backlog that has piled up on people's desks. If we can accomplish that for the
30 first nations in Alberta and the 14 first nations in Saskatchewan, who
support the bill and endorse this process, that in itself would be progress,
and I support that.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, just so that we do not get too carried
away in thanking and complimenting the government in the interest of keeping
some balance, I certainly agree that the bill before us today addresses a
backlog that has been created, which is a very positive sign. I know this is a
very common concern that has been voiced by first nations about the amount of
bureaucracy, paperwork and process that these issues have had to go
through.
However we also need to recognize that there are many
other issues that need to be addressed within first nations governance and
within the claims process.
The member is very knowledge on this issue as our
critic for aboriginal affairs. Could he comment on whether he thinks there are
any aspects of this bill that could applied, for example, in British Columbia
where I know there have been a lot of issues around the treaty negotiation
process and claims process. Does the hon. member think there are other things
that could be undertaken, as a result of the bill, to address concerns that
have been put forward by first nations?
(1255)
Mr. Pat Martin:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver East for
the opportunity to expand on that point somewhat. Had I had more time in my
original speech, I would have pointed out that we have some reservations about
the bill. One aspect of the bill we are critical of is a recurring theme that
we see in much of the legislation introduced by the government. It expands and
enhances the powers of the minister.
This is such a recurring theme that I cannot think of
one piece of legislation in the four years I have been in the House of Commons
in which the Liberal Party, the government party, has not sought to expand the
discretionary authority or discretionary power of the minister. I remind
ministers and others that they will not always be ministers.
Even if I have no personal problem with the current
minister of aboriginal affairs having expanded authority because there might be
a sense of trust there, God forbid we could look at a day when the official
opposition might be the government and the powers of people vehemently opposed
to aboriginal self-government might have been expanded. They might use that
power in a way that we would not be satisfied with at all. We have to consider
that as the powers of the current minister of aboriginal affairs are
expanded.
We are dealing with a situation where the official
opposition is on record saying things like the famous quote of the aboriginal
affairs critic for the Reform Party about living on an Indian reserve being
like living on a South Seas island being supported by a rich uncle. That was
the attitude we heard put forward by the Reform Party, now the Canadian
Alliance.
I want to be accurate because I do not want to
misrepresent what the member for
Athabasca actually said,
but he said that we should not say we did not defeat those people just because
we did not beat them in a war, that they are in fact vanquished; otherwise we
would not have been able to force them on to these godforsaken little reserves
they live on. That is the tone of the comments we get from the Canadian
Alliance, from the official opposition, when it comes to aboriginal
issues.
I caution the government and the ruling party. As it
enhances the powers of the minister perhaps they should be sunsetted just in
case there is a change of government some day and that authority or that power
could be abused.
I do not know if I am out of time, but the hon. member
asked me about the British Columbia experience. We have been dealing with the
occupation of lands in the Sun Peaks area in the interior of British Columbia.
We have met with the aboriginal leadership in the interior and the Kamloops
band in that area.
Many outstanding issues will not be affected or
enhanced or even improved in any way, shape or form by this legislation, but we
hope the sentiment expressed in the legislation will have a desirable effect on
other outstanding issues in other provinces.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, some of the last comments made by the
member for Winnipeg Centre seem unfortunate. I certainly have no idea how
dredging up things from years and years gone by, probably taken out of context,
has anything to do with building and being positive.
As the first ever Reform Party member elected to the
House of Commons in 1989 I remind the member for Winnipeg Centre that I taught
school on a reserve at Frog Lake. I had several native foster children in my
home. I was a lighthouse for the Reform Party. I tell him that there is sweet
nothing to be gained by this kind of behaviour and debate in the House of
Commons.
Let me tell him exactly what the Canadian Alliance
position is in its policy paper. It states:
Our position in land claims
negotiations will be to ensure respect for existing private property rights,
affordable and conclusive settlement of all claims, and an open and transparent
process involving all stakeholders. |
Is that not what the NDP just said? Is that not in some
measure what the government is trying to do right now? That is what we should
be discussing right now.
On behalf of members of the Canadian Alliance, the
official opposition, as someone who has represented them for quite some time,
and on behalf of every member of the House of Commons, it is foolish to even go
down that path. Shame on them.
Let me get to the bill at hand, Bill C-37, and talk a
bit about some of the pros and cons in that legislation. Obviously there is a
history in this regard. The minister talked about it earlier this morning. If
we had any choice it would have been to have the bill longer because there is
so much to study in it. It was just brought in last week. I know that it was to
be debated this coming Thursday, but because of Bill C-33 respecting the
Nunavut water board and tribunal this bill is coming into the House earlier
today.
So keen was I to make sure that I did get something to
say about it, I travelled on the all-nighter last night so I arrived here at
about 8.25 this morning. I am glad to be here while we are participating in
this debate. I am also glad that we can change our flights around.
If we look at the history in this regard, the minister
alluded to the Manitoba land claims agreement and made some changes to that as
well. That came in, in 2000. To be able to make changes to that legislation to
tighten it up, to make it more efficient and more streamlined, as the minister
said, is a good thing. With the ongoing land claim settlements we need to be
able to make sure they are swiftly and positively resolved. If this bill is in
any way able to do that it is a good thing, not just for first nations but also
for third party stakeholders. The minister talked about them.
Life is a balance. We always need to be able to come up
with some sort of a balance that we can strike with regard to the stakeholders,
whether in oil, gas, minerals or whatever, on reserve land or on future reserve
land, as the minister talked about.
Let us look for a few moments at some of the general
observations of the bill. Native reserve claim settlements normally require the
accommodation of existing third party interest. That is there
already.
Before land can be set apart for reserve creation or
expansion the existing third party interests on that piece of land must be
cleared either by buying out that land and cancelling it, or by accommodating
the interest in a manner agreeable to Canada, the particular first nation and
the third party. Only after that can the land be transferred to the government
for reserve purposes.
Again that process looks like it is a good one, but of
course the trick is how lengthy that process can be become. I think my
colleague said that it could go on for years and years, sometimes even a
generation for sure. Usually the additions to the reserve process takes between
one and three years, but all kinds of outstanding land claim settlements can go
on for many years.
Hopefully Bill C-37 will speed up that process. It
would allow a first nation to consent to the creation of interests on land
proposed for reserve status rather than waiting until after the land has been
purchased by the federal government and granted reserve status.
We look at the timelines on it, give checkmarks and say
that is a good thing.
(1300)
We have to look at some of the pros and a few of the
cons in the particular bill. We need to draw a column. It seems to me we all do
that in our lives when we have a decision to make. We look at the pros and the
cons. Then we weigh them off against each other because life is obviously just
a series of tradeoffs and balances.
Some of the pros are that Bill C-37 would allow the
minister to set lands apart for reserve creation expansion rather than doing
this by the more time consuming order in council. Not only will this hasten the
settlement of outstanding reserve claims, but with the large numbers of reserve
creation orders expected in the future this will also avoid taxing the order in
council process. I am sure that gets to be fairly lengthy on its
own.
We could flip that pro into a con and say that as with
so much legislation, as the member for Winnipeg said, the minister seems to get
a great deal of power regardless of who is in power. We have to make sure that
there are checks and balances on the power of the minister.
I am sure the minister would agree with that. We have
both sat in the House for many years. It would be a pity to think that he would
become omnipotent or something like that. I am sure he would never want that to
happen. We have to make sure we balance out the pro with the con in that
regard. Yes, it does give the minister more power, but let us make sure that
there are checks and balances.
The predesignation provision allowing a first nation to
consent to third party interest on land proposed for reserve status will
significantly reduce the time required for Saskatchewan and Alberta to fulfill
their reserve expansion commitments. Dear knows this whole process goes on and
on. Perhaps the bill can hurry that process along, again making sure that all
aspects are taken into consideration and that all stakeholders and third
parties, regardless of what their interests are, are not getting the short end
of the stick or shafted in any way on either side.
A speedier implementation process would encourage on
reserve economic activity benefiting the first nation and provide commercial
certainty for the third party that has an interest in proposed reserve land
during the transfer process.
What a smart thing it is to have economic development
on reserves. Hopefully the idea of complete dependence on government is waning
across the nation. For first nations and reserves to be totally dependent on
government is not a happy situation for anyone. None of us like to be
completely dependent. If this in any way gives economic self-sufficiency or
economic development for reserves across the land, it would certainly be seen
as a good thing.
The legislation accommodates existing third party
interests to give the first nations the opportunity to welcome new interests
during the reserve creation process. It is interesting that while the bill is
before the House we are talking about the pipeline in the Northwest
Territories. That is also important.
All the kinks have not been worked out of it. That is
for sure, but as we are watching this process evolve right now there are
private oil companies which are taking in the aboriginal community in a
one-third profit sharing idea. That whole idea of economic development cannot
hurt anyone for sure. It is interesting that those events are going along a
parallel track to make sure that third party interests really are considered
and yet they are able to share the benefit of using native lands as well.
This will give the first nations a chance to select
commercially viable lands for reserve expansion rather than simply those lands
which are already cleared of existing interests. Again, that appears to be a
benefit.
We have a couple of concerns. I have already mentioned
the explicit one, not total but certainly more power for the minister. We need
to make sure we keep that in check.
Although we support facilitating a quicker resolution
of first nation claim settlements, we have concerns regarding the effects of
the legislation on third party stakeholders with interest on proposed reserve
lands.
I just mentioned the pipeline through the north coming
down into Canada. Alaska also wants to get in on that. However, to make sure we
are not all on one side or the other, there needs to be a balance. As I have
said many times in my remarks as well as in the past, we need to make sure that
there is concern for both sides here, that we do not just take off our glasses
and say we want this side or that side to benefit. It needs to be mutually
beneficial.
That is the only way in life it works. To me it is the
only way this piece of legislation can work. We have to work together and make
sure we get the aboriginal community as well as the third party stakeholders to
the table.
(1305)
We are not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes
or pull a quick one and say to them that they have missed their chance, because
we know these things always have ramifications. Sooner or later those concerns
will come up, or there will not be any goodwill for third party stakeholders to
even work with the government or to believe that a piece of legislation like
this will really help them. We want to make sure that the third party
stakeholders feel they are being listened to, that they, as well as the first
nations, are being given not just the benefit of the doubt but the benefit of
the whole situation, because I know that many of them over the years have had
concerns that they have been railroaded or whatever.
Again, the minister has a huge responsibility to live
up to. I know there are frustrations across the country right now and he faced
frustrations this summer. These surely are difficult times for him to be
working through. I know he will realize how important it is to strike that
balance. We in the official coalition are in the opposition now, but sooner or
later, as the member said, someone else will be in government and we want to
make sure that there are reasonable and rational processes in place, as well as
transitions that would take place for any government of the day.
I know the minister understands that because when he
and I first started in the House we were sitting in the opposition corner. The
opposition coalition wishes him well with this. I suppose if we can give any
advice or caution it would be to make sure that he deals with this sensitively
on both sides of the issue. I know it is a tough tightrope to walk but at the
same time I do believe it is important. If he does not, obviously down the road
he will end up with problems far more serious than those he is facing
now.
The opposition coalition gives qualified support. We
say to the government that we want to move ahead with these land claims
settlements and we trust that this Alberta-Saskatchewan land claims agreement,
which is modelled after Manitoba's, will go well, that it will go speedily and
that we will see some true benefits both for the first nations and the third
party stakeholders.
(1310)
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-37,
claims settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) implementation act. I am pleased
to have this opportunity to speak in support of this proposed
legislation.
At first glance this may appear to be a somewhat
technical bill, with limited scope and applicability but first impressions can
be deceiving. The reality is that the changes proposed in this legislation--as
minor as they may appear--will have a big impact on first nations communities
throughout Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Hon. members should know that Bill C-37, when it
becomes law, will make a difference in the lives of first nations people and
communities. It will make a difference to landowners, developers and people who
live and work near existing reserves.
What is so important about this proposed legislation?
After all, the existing process for adding lands to reserves works, does it
not? It is a little slow and cumbersome but the job gets done.
If that is the approach we wish to take, then yes, the
current process does work, but it hardly works well. In fact, it is severely
impeding progress in resolving outstanding settlement commitments that have
been made to first nations in Alberta and Saskatchewan--some of which date back
a decade or more.
Let me state for the record that this in not the
approach this government intends to take. We are not prepared to accept the
status quo because first nations deserve and want better, and Canadian
taxpayers as a whole deserve a more efficient process.
The government intends to move quickly in fulfilling
Canada's commitments to aboriginal people. This is really what Bill C-37 is all
about.
“Gathering Strength”, our response to the report of the
royal commission on aboriginal peoples, included a number of specific
commitments. Notable among these was a pledge to honour Canada's treaties
signed with aboriginal people.
This goes to the very heart of Bill C-37 because the
key objective of this proposed legislation is to implement better, more
expeditious ways to meet our reserve expansion commitments, most of which arise
out of treaty land entitlements.
Perhaps some history is in order to help put this issue
into perspective. As members will know, between 1874 and 1906, the Government
of Canada signed several numbered treaties with first nations in Alberta and
Saskatchewan. As a general rule, these treaties required Canada to allocate
reserve land to a first nation based on its population--generally, the first
nation was to receive a certain acreage for each family group.
For one reason or another, many first nations involved
in this treaty making process did not receive the full amount of land promised
to them. In some cases, the shortfall can be blamed on inaccurate counts of
band members; in other instances, not enough land was set apart when a reserve
was first surveyed.
Regardless of the cause, there is no question that
insufficient amounts of reserve lands were provided to some first nations.
Therefore, while some of the treaty land entitlement obligations were fully
satisfied long ago, many first nations in Alberta and Saskatchewan did not
historically receive their full land entitlement.
These century old injustices must be resolved and our
government has been tackling the problem with renewed energy over the past
several years.
Treaty land entitlement settlement agreements have been
signed with six first nations in Alberta. In Saskatchewan, a treaty land
entitlement framework agreement is in place covering most of the affected first
nations, and several others have signed individual agreements. In total, 36
first nations in the two provinces are encompassed by these agreements.
Clearly the will exists on all sides to move forward on
this issue. Appropriate resources have been earmarked for these settlements by
the governments of Canada, Alberta and Saskatchewan. First nations have been
identifying lands they would like to add to their reserves. However, despite
the best of intentions and the full co-operation of all parties, this is where
progress has bogged down.
Almost invariably, the lands being selected by first
nations have existing third party interests. Under the terms of claim
settlements, these interests must either be cleared or accommodated in a way
that is satisfactory to everyone involved before the lands can be added to a
reserve.
(1315)
Unfortunately, with the exception of the Manitoba Claim
Settlements Implementation Act and, to a lesser extent, the Saskatchewan Treaty
Land Entitlement Act, existing federal laws simply are not geared to
accommodating third party interests with any degree of certainty or
timeliness.
In fact, the current additions to reserve process
create a classic catch 22 situation. Third party interests must be addressed
before lands can be granted reserve status. But with the exceptions I just
noted, first nations can only agree to permit a third party interest on land
that is already part of a reserve.
The end result is that processing selected lands into
reserve status takes a great deal of time and energy, which is one reason why
settlements signed some time ago are not yet fully implemented.
Bill C-37 will address this situation by providing for
more efficient and commercially certain ways to accommodate third party
interests. Essentially, a first nation will be able to consent to such an
interest--either existing or new--before lands have been granted reserve
status.
Recent experience has shown that the sooner third-party
interests can be resolved, the quicker lands can be added to a reserve, and the
quicker first nations can begin to reap the economic benefits associated with
those lands.
It is interesting to note that the catalyst for Bill
C-37 was a commitment by Canada to recommend such legislation under treaty land
entitlement settlements concluded in 1998 with the Alexander First Nation and
the Loon River Cree First Nation.
In other words, the proposed legislation is fulfilling
commitments to specific first nations, while at the same time addressing
longstanding issues of concern for more than 30 other first nations in Alberta
and Saskatchewan.
Bill C-37 extends beyond the scope of treaty land
entitlement agreements. With the approval of first nations and the affected
provincial governments, the legislation has been crafted in such a way that it
may benefit any other existing or future claim settlements containing reserve
expansion commitments in both provinces.
For example, Canada also has reserve expansion
commitments arising out of specific claims settlements in Alberta and
Saskatchewan. Although these commitments involve significantly less land than
treaty land entitlement settlements, they present the same implementation
difficulties.
I want to emphasize that the bill is not being forced
on any first nation in Alberta or Saskatchewan. It would apply on a per claim
basis, and only when the affected first nation agrees to opt in to its
provisions. First nations that wish to continue to add lands to their reserves
using existing processes will be free to do so.
In closing, let me say once again that Bill C-37 is an
implicit part of this government's commitment under “Gathering Strength” to
address Canada's historical obligations to aboriginal people and to pave the
way for their greater economic self-reliance.
The bill would also strengthen the capacity of first
nations governments to make decisions about lands selected for addition to
reserves under claim settlements in a way that is effective, timely and
accountable to their membership.
Bill C-37 would help Canada move beyond historic
grievances with first nations people while ensuring that past agreements were
honoured and fulfilled. It is a positive step into the future, a step that is
supported by first nations in Alberta and Saskatchewan and by the governments
of these provinces. It clearly deserves the support of this House as
well.
(1320)
[English]
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by answering the questions
from the opposition parties. I think I can deal with virtually all of them,
which I hope will speed the process through committee.
I was of course delighted to hear the member from the
coalition talk about the futility of dredging up the past. I eagerly look
forward to seeing how the Alliance and the coalition bring that sentiment into
question period today.
The NDP and the Bloc were basically in support of the
bill and outlined some of its good points. Several questions came up, mostly
from the official opposition, and I will address some of those points. The
first point was about providing the public with more and better information on
some of the concepts. My colleague from the NDP did a very good job of that.
For people who may not have been aware of them, he explained some of the
provisions in the bill.
The opposition member mentioned that one definition
that is not covered is specific claims. Just so members know, these are items
that come up over and above the regular treaty obligations, which may have come
up over the years as isolated incidents that do not hold up under the Indian
Act and that we have to deal with.
The second point the member for the official opposition
mentioned was related to municipal claims. He specifically mentioned SARM, but
SARM has been involved along the way with these claims and has been dealing
with the government in a good working relationship. SARM is quite familiar with
the claims. Although it is not an issue in Alberta, there have been claims by
municipalities, school boards and other taxing authorities for alleged loss of
tax revenues due to establishment under a claims settlement.
However in Saskatchewan the tax loss issues were dealt
with in two ways. For Saskatchewan, the treaty land entitlement framework
provides that Canada and Saskatchewan shall contribute equally to a fund which
is to be used to compensate rural municipalities. It also compensates school
boards for tax losses experienced as a result of reserve expansions under that
agreement. For the specific claim settlements which the member for the
opposition mentioned, tax loss is largely the responsibility of the government
of Saskatchewan by virtue of a bilateral agreement signed in 1999 between
Saskatchewan and Canada. This is well in hand. I hope the member will be happy
that it has been dealt with.
The last point he raised is related to mineral claims.
He is right when he says that in some cases mineral claims will revert to the
crown for the benefit of the first nation. That is good because that will help
first nations economic development.
That is all I can remember of the member's points. If
there were any others perhaps the member could bring them up in question
period, because if all the questions have been dealt with hopefully the bill
will go quickly through committee.
There was a point brought up by the NDP and the
coalition that related to the powers of the minister, in particular the powers
to allow the minister to make these decisions as opposed to having an order in
council. This was requested by a number of first nations and also will speed up
the process of this administrative function so that they can get on with their
economic development with these third party interests.
The last point I want to comment on relates to the
pipeline. It was mentioned by the coalition. Because the Alaska gas pipeline
would go through my riding, I am delighted that this was raised. There would be
great benefits for aboriginal people through employment and perhaps in taxes in
different parts of the north, but in the Northwest Territories and Yukon there
are different legal regimes, different treaty regimes, so it is not that
relevant to those areas.
(1325)
However, if it goes through Alberta through the natural
gas pipeline which would bring Alaskan gas from Prudhoe Bay through Alaska and
the Yukon, and if it happens to go through a reserve, it could possibly apply
and once again would help first nations speed up their economic development
with those added assets.
This is important legislation not only for the first
nations in Alberta and Saskatchewan but for all residents of those provinces
and indeed for all Canadians. I would like to take a few minutes to explore the
issues of how changes proposed in Bill C-37 would foster economic development
in the affected first nations communities. I want to focus on this because it
is a fundamental argument in favour of the proposed legislation.
I think hon. members on all sides of the House would
agree it is vitally important that aboriginal communities from coast to coast
to coast have opportunities to become more fully engaged in the Canadian
economy. A strengthened aboriginal economy would help to address the many
difficult issues that face first nations and Inuit communities across the
nation. That is not to say that progress has not been made already. I can cite
dozens of examples of successful aboriginal companies. In fact, there are more
than 18,000 aboriginal owned businesses in Canada, ranging from small home
based enterprises to multimillion dollar companies that do business around the
world. Many of these are located on first nations reserves where they not only
provide essential goods and services but are a vital source of employment and
revenue.
The aboriginal community is diverse and vibrant.
Aboriginal businesses operate in all sectors of the economy. They include
resource industry firms, transportation and construction companies and retail
and service outlets. They include manufacturing operations, management
consultants, computer companies, arts and crafts enterprises and environmental
and cultural tourism businesses.
However, more needs to be done to foster economic
development in aboriginal communities, particularly on reserves. Despite the
progress that has been made over the past couple of decades, aboriginal people
continue to be among the most economically disadvantaged of all Canadians.
There is still far too large a gap between the employment rates among first
nations people and among other Canadians.
First nations still face special barriers to economic
development, including legal obstacles, lower levels of education and lack of
business experience and capital. These barriers are affecting social conditions
in reserve communities. They are affecting families and children, and the
effects are not positive ones.
What does all this have to do with Bill C-37? In my
mind, having a sufficient land base upon which to engage in economic activity
is the key to achieving prosperity in first nations communities. Since the
claim settlements that would be facilitated by this proposed legislation
concern reserve expansion, these settlements are an incredibly important
vehicle for supporting aboriginal economic development. Treaty land entitlement
and specific claim settlements do more than address past wrongs of first
nations people. They pave the way for a better economic future by providing a
secure land base and, in some cases, a financial package that can be used by
the claimant group to fund economic development activities.
As consideration of the bill progresses, we will hear
repeatedly of the legal and technical obstacles in the current additions to
reserves process, which are impeding progress in implementing settlement
agreements. These obstacles have resulted in an enormous backlog of commitments
to add lands to reserves in Alberta and Saskatchewan, a backlog that is certain
to grow unless action is taken to address some of the basic underlying
problems. This is the objective of Bill C-37.
The proposed legislation would expedite and facilitate
the additions to reserves process in two ways: first, by authorizing the
minister rather than the governor in council to confer reserve status on lands
and, second, by introducing new and better ways to accommodate third party
interests in lands that are being converted to reserve status under claim
settlements in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
I would like to consider three ways in which these
elements of the bill would encourage economic activity in reserve communities.
First and foremost, the proposed legislation would demonstrate to investors and
others who engage in activities on lands proposed for reserve status that
transactions can be concluded with greater predictability for both the first
nation and third parties.
(1330)
Hon. members can appreciate that certainty and
stability are prerequisites for economic development. Regardless of whether an
activity would be taking place in a reserve community or in downtown Edmonton
or Regina, Bill C-37 would provide businesses and investors in Alberta and
Saskatchewan with certainty of tenure for any third party interest they might
hold in lands to be added to a reserve. It would also provide the certainty
businesses need to negotiate new commercial arrangements with first nations
communities.
Equally important is that the changes proposed in Bill
C-37 would significantly reduce the amount of time needed to process lands into
reserve status. Dealing with third party interests under the current process is
problematic and time consuming. Sometimes it takes up to two years or more.
This would all change if Bill C-37 becomes law. Because lands would be selected
and added to reserves more quickly, the lands themselves and the revenues
generated from any third party interests preserved on them would contribute to
more immediate economic and social progress in the community. In fact, the
pre-designation powers included in Bill C-37 would allow first nations to begin
to enjoy these economic rewards even before the selected lands have been
granted reserve status.
Finally, I support the bill 100% because making the
accommodation of third party interests easier would give first nations access
to a broader range of land that has development interests or potential. I think
the member from one of the opposition parties mentioned that positive
point.
In other words, these changes would facilitate the
selection by first nations of commercially viable lands rather than lands that
are simply unencumbered by existing interests. As first nations acquire better
lands we can expect to see increased economic activity in these
communities.
Although this proposed legislation may appear to be
minor in the overall scheme of government activities, I do not think we should
underestimate its impact. The vast majority of land selections under claim
settlements in Alberta and Saskatchewan would be affected by one or more third
party interests, whether that be a right of way for an access road, resource
rights or a leasehold. Bill C-37 would have the potential to come into play for
virtually every one of these claims. With the likelihood of even more
settlements in the years ahead, the legislation's importance to the additions
to reserve process in Alberta and Saskatchewan would only increase over
time.
Obviously I am very supportive of the proposed
legislation. I believe Bill C-37 would contribute to improved quality of life
in first nations communities throughout Alberta and Saskatchewan. It would
contribute to a growing economic base to support first nations self-government
and it would help first nations communities further distance themselves from
economic dependency on government.
Bill C-37 is yet another step the government is taking
to live up to its commitments in “Gathering Strength”, including our commitment
to support strong communities, people and economies. It is another step toward
a better future for aboriginal people in Canada.
With these important benefits in mind, I would
encourage hon. members to support the proposed legislation so it can proceed
quickly through the House and to the other place.
(1335)
Mr. Murray Calder
(Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with a lot of interest to the
speech of the member for Yukon and would like to tell him that in the past I
have had a chance to work with the minister of Indian affairs. In 1995 we
worked on the privatization of CN, so I see a lot of good things in Bill C-37
right now, having worked with the minister previously.
I would like the member to explain some points to me.
In Bill C-37 I see basically a lot of components of the Manitoba land claims
act and settlement. I would like him to explain to me what he would like to see
when the bill goes to committee. There are some strong points in the bill.
Could he highlight what points he would like to see drawn out in committee
immediately to go along on this deal making process he was talking
about?
Mr. Larry Bagnell:
Mr. Speaker, as a new member, I would like to know is
why this particular member always asks me questions. I remember the first time
I made a speech he asked me a question about farming and I am probably the
least likely riding in the country to have farms. I thought he was on my side
but this is a particularly good question.
I hope I have answered most of the questions that the
opposition parties brought up. They made some good points. They supported
things and brought up some concerns. I tried to elaborate on those points and I
am anticipating that the bill will go through committee very quickly,
especially since I happen to be on that committee. We are dealing with a number
of other serious issues and complicated bills some of which are coming from my
riding in the Yukon.
The most important point for people to understand is
that because the land will be transferred to a reserve there could be economic
considerations. As all the parties have said, it will be very beneficial for
first nations. Hopefully most of this land has some good economic potential.
Rather than waiting for the long protracted process of getting approval to do
things and getting the certainty for the land, the businesses and the first
nations can start right away and keep it economic.
That will help both the business and the first nations.
From the first nations’ side, this land is in limbo because of all sorts of
bureaucratic steps. For the businesses, especially if they already have
interests on that land, they can continue to get quick revenue from that land
without an interruption and without the uncertainty. They will just have a new
landlord and they can continue to take in funds.
I hope it is brought up in that context as sort of an
administrative bill but it has some very sweeping benefits that are so needed
to develop the economies of first nations.
Mr. John Finlay (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-37,
the claim settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) implementation act.
I join the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development in urging hon. members to recognize the merits of the legislation
and to help us move it quickly through the legislative process. As the hon.
member for Yukon mentioned, that means the committee. We are looking forward to
getting it as soon as possible.
I, too, feel that it is an essential bill that would
help very much in the recognition and respect for which our native people are
looking and also in the economic development in which they want to
partake.
As the minister made clear this morning, the bill
addresses a number of commitments and goals consistent with the government's
aboriginal agenda. It would affirm and honour treaties which are a cornerstone
of Canada's relationships with aboriginal people. It would help foster economic
development in first nations communities throughout Alberta and Saskatchewan so
that the communities can become more self-sufficient and
sustainable.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of areas in your riding
and mine, and in the ridings of many members on both sides of the House, that
would benefit from extension of the act to all provinces. That may be something
we will see within a short space of time.
It would facilitate the process by which Canada is
living up to its commitments to the first nations people. It would accomplish
all this primarily by ensuring that better means exist to recognize and
accommodate third party interests in lands selected for additions to reserves
in Alberta and Saskatchewan. In other words, the powers being accorded first
nations under the proposed legislation do not come at the expense of any
individual, business, institution or government, and that is often the sticking
point in some of our negotiations.
In fact, the opposite is true. Bill C-37 would provide
the certainty of tenure that third parties with existing interests need. The
minister has stated that this is truly a win-win situation for the current
backlog of current reserve expansion commitments in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
At the present time there is close to a million hectares, which is 2.5 million
acres, of land being considered for this very purpose.
It is a good solution for first nations because the
pre-reserve designation and permit granting powers provided for under the
legislation would allow them to select and acquire the best lands available,
regardless of encumbrances, instead of taking what is left over and the worst
lands available.
First nations would be able to enter into better
agreements with third parties and more quickly which means that the economic
benefits of land ownership will flow to communities sooner rather than
later.
However, developers, investors and others who have
third party interests in lands selected by first nations to fulfill a treaty
land entitlement or specific claims agreement, would also benefit from the
commercial certainty provided by Bill C-37.
I want to focus on the issue of accommodating third
party interests for two reasons: first, it has been the main stumbling block to
moving more quickly in meeting Canada's reserve expansion commitments in
Alberta and Saskatchewan; and second, I know the protection of third party
interests is an important consideration for hon. members on all sides of the
House.
The minister has advised us that Canada currently has a
commitment to add a million hectares. More such commitments will be made as
additional claims are settled.
Land to fulfill these commitments is typically
contributed from unoccupied federal or provincial crown lands. Alternatively
the land may be purchased by the first nations on a willing seller, willing
buyer basis. Herein lies the problem: the vast majority of land being selected
by first nations for additions to reserves has existing third party
interest.
(1340)
These interests may range from rights of way and hydro
line easements to mineral permits and leases, timber licences, commercial and
residential leaseholds for tourism, recreation, vacations, et cetera.
Regardless of the nature of the interest, it must be
accommodating in some way that is satisfactory to all parties: Canada, the
first nation and the interest holder. This is one of the key issues that must
be addressed under the federal additions to reserves process.
Unfortunately, as we have heard already, with the
exception of the recently enacted Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act
and the 1993 Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement Act, existing federal laws
were not designed with the requirements of the additions to reserves process in
mind. In other words, they are not geared to accommodate third party interest
in a way that is either commercially certain or commercially
expeditious.
Under the current provisions of the Indian Act, for
example, a first nation can only consent to the creation of interest on reserve
land if the land is already part of the reserve. This does not include land
that is being merely proposed for reserve status. Of course first nations, like
any land owner, can grant leases on land they own privately, but if a first
nation wanted to transfer such land to Canada to be made into a reserve, any
third party interests on the land could not legally be carried forward. They
would have to be terminated and then reinstituted.
Land must exist as reserve land before leases or any
other third party interests can be voted on by the membership of the first
nation.
What this means is that a third party must surrender
its interest in land, even if only temporarily, before the land can be added to
a reserve. In exchange, the first nation at present is only able to offer the
promise or undertaking that it will vote to re-grant that interest once the
reserve is created. At the snail's pace that some negotiations move, that could
be a long wait and someone might lose interest.
Most interest holders are understandably reluctant to
do this because it puts their future rights at risk. As a result, the addition
to reserve may be effectively stalemated and the affected first nation may have
to abandon its preferred choice of land and accept land that has far less
development potential.
Manitoba first nations have been released from this
cumbersome process under the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act,
providing the additions to reserves commitment arises out of a land claim
settlement. The situation has also been addressed to some extent in
Saskatchewan where the Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement Act of 1993 allows
first nations to consent to the granting of interest on lands that do not yet
have reserve status.
However experience since 1993 has taught us that this
power under the Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement Act has not proven as
advantageous as it could have been since it is limited to the granting of
existing interest. It can only be used in treaty land entitlement situations,
not in specific claim situations, and it can be only used when the first nation
has already purchased the land.
Such limitations have been avoided in the wording of
both the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act and the provisions of
the present bill.
Bill C-37 would essentially extend the pre-designation
powers now available in Manitoba to first nations in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Under this proposed legislation, a first nation will be able to consent to a
third party land interest either existing or new during the reserve expansion
process and indeed even before purchasing the land itself. In this way first
nations will be free to then purchase the land knowing the encumbrances have
been settled in advance and where they will not present a hurdle to reserve
designation.
To achieve this, Bill C-37 borrows from a variety of
existing federal legal mechanisms for granting third party interests but
adjusts each in minor ways to facilitate their use when applied to additions to
reserves. The effect will be to provide first nations and third parties with
commercial certainty in their deal making while land is being processed as
reserve land.
This new approach will help avoid situations where the
first nation is forced to negotiate the buy-out and closure of an ongoing
viable operation simply to clear the land of encumbrances, thereby forgoing any
future revenues that might have been derived in terms of royalties or rents, or
the holder of that third party interest is asked to risk temporarily
surrendering that interest while a parcel of land is being processed into
reserve status.
(1345)
The bill will give developers and investors, both
existing and potential, the assurances they need to enter into agreements with
first nations. At the end of the day, both parties, the first nations community
and the holder of the interest, will benefit from these business
arrangements.
Hon. members can appreciate that these proposed changes
are designed to make the additions to reserves process as smooth and simple as
possible for all parties in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Bill C-37 will put real
estate transactions related to reserve expansions on a level playing field with
non-reserve transactions in these two provinces. At the same time it will
provide clear-cut legal mechanisms for protecting third party interests in land
selected for addition to a reserve.
Having said that, it is important to acknowledge that
the first nations with claim settlement agreements in Alberta and Saskatchewan
will not automatically be bound by this new legislation. First nations will
have complete flexibility in deciding whether to opt into these
provisions.
I assure hon. members that Bill C-37 will not impose
any additional restrictions or requirements on land owners or third party
interest holders. No land owner will be forced to sell property to a first
nation to fulfill a claims settlement agreement nor will a third party interest
holder be forced to enter into agreements with first nations. Both these types
of transactions will continue to take place on the basis of a willing buyer and
a willing seller. The bill simply allows agreements to be put in place where
both parties desire it.
This is clearly a good piece of legislation. It will
protect third parties while giving way for new partnerships with aboriginal
communities. It deserves the support of hon. members and I urge them to join me
in voting to send Bill C-37 to committee for review.
(1350)
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that it would give
first nations flexibility and I appreciate that. Will the local governments
that will lose taxation on properties that are being acquired have flexibility
in the service they have to provide under the current legislation?
Mr. John Finlay:
Mr. Speaker, I understand that is already covered in
the legislation in Alberta and Saskatchewan. They would be a third party and
have an interest in the land. Therefore, it would have to be agreed
to.
Mr. Roy Bailey:
Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the third party
is the individual or group of individuals from which the first nations are
making the purchase. Having said that, once that land goes into reserve or into
specified land claims, does the local government, the village or rural
municipality have the flexibility in the services which it must provide under
the act at the present time?
Mr. John Finlay:
Mr. Speaker, the general answer is yes. Those services
must be paid for, agreed to and provided on a willing basis. Otherwise DIAND
has to step in and do something, as it has had to do in a number of areas. The
member has made a very good point. In Saskatchewan right now I understand that
is allowed and there is an agreement in place to compensate the municipality
for the loss of that tax revenue.
The Deputy Speaker:
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion
carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.
(Bill read the second time
and referred to a committee)
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1355)
[English]
Flu Awareness Month
Mr. David Price (Compton--Stanstead,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all
Canadians that October is National Flu Awareness Month.
Every winter almost one-quarter of Canadians are
infected with influenza. Thousands become seriously ill and thousands more die
from flu related complications.
Anyone who wants to improve his or her chances of
having a flu free winter can benefit from the annual flu shot. The flu shot
cannot give a person the flu and side effects are minor.
[Translation]
At high risk are seniors, adults and children with
chronic diseases, and their caregivers. Without vaccination, they may face the
possibility of serious or even fatal consequences should they get the flu. A
yearly vaccination is the only preventive measure that has been proven to
reduce mortality rate from influenza.
* * *
(1400)
[English]
Jim Munson
Mr. John Reynolds (West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I hope this does not damage his future
prospects but I would like to rise today on behalf of the official opposition
to pay tribute to Jim Munson.
Jim Munson joined CTV News in 1979. Previously
he had worked in radio, including a stint at Broadcast News. While at CTV Mr.
Munson served as London and Beijing bureau chief. We especially note his
excellent coverage of the anti-communist uprising in Tiananmen
Square.
I can say without fear of contradiction that Jim is
highly regarded by all members of the House. He is tough but fair, scrupulously
accurate, hardworking and intelligent. I have not always agreed with him but I
have always respected him. I first met Jim in the early seventies when I first
came to the Chamber. He is a true professional.
On behalf of the official opposition, the Canadian
Alliance, I thank Jim Munson for his work all these years. We are saddened by
his departure. He will be missed. We wish him all the best in the future and
say bonsoir à notre ami.
* * *
National Sleep Awareness
Week
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all
Canadians that October 22 to October 28 has been designated National Sleep
Awareness Week.
Over three million Canadians suffer from sleep
disorders yet many are unaware they are affected. Sleep disorders reduce the
quality of life by decreasing alertness and the ability to perform effectively
on a daily basis.
Sleep/Wake Disorders Canada responds to the needs of
people with various sleeping disorders ranging from the most common, insomnia,
to sleep apnea where breathing stops periodically throughout the night possibly
inducing heart attack or stroke.
With the goal of improving the quality of life of
affected individuals, Sleep/Wake Disorders Canada distributes information,
encourages research and establishes local self-help groups. I ask members to
join me in wishing Sleep/Wake Disorders Canada a successful public awareness
week.
* * *
[Translation]
National Block Parent
Week
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is National Block Parent Week. The
Block Parent program works to prevent crime in our neighbourhoods.
The distinctive red and white Block Parent window sign
in the window of a home helps out hundreds of Canadians every year. Whether
children, seniors or others who are lost, frightened, or in distress, everyone
benefits from the services of the Block Parent program.
The commitment of some 50,000 volunteers enhances the
security and compassion of Canada's communities. It is important to acknowledge
their contribution and their importance.
I wish to pay tribute to the Block Parent volunteers.
Knowing they are there is most reassuring.
* * *
[English]
Health
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that during the last
parliament the Prime Minister persuaded the provinces to make a deal on health
care and the children's agenda. This was an important step forward but we must
still work on strengthening the federal role in health affairs.
In the end it is only the federal government that can
ensure nationwide standards. Only the federal government can make sure that all
Canadians, not just some regions, get the health care and child support to
which they are entitled.
Our health care system is designed to be universal,
portable, comprehensive, publicly funded and publicly administered. Let us make
it so.
* * *
Agriculture
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the policies of the government are killing
rural Canada. Prairie grain producers are experiencing an income disaster. What
is the government's response? It responds with programs fat with government
administration and very lean on results.
The government's policies are killing rural
transportation systems. The useless firearms registration law is wasting
hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars while treating farmers as
criminals. The Liberals with their cruelty to animals agenda have now joined
the animal rights fanatics in their harassment of Canadian farmers.
Farmers need relief from the burdens of excessive
government regulation, taxation and harassment. When will the government
realize that the war is against terrorism and not against Canadian
farmers?
* * *
(1405)
UNICEF
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as Halloween approaches it is important
for all Canadians to give a little more to ghosts and goblins wearing bright
orange boxes around their necks this year.
The United Nations International Children's Emergency
Fund, or UNICEF, has been helping children of the world for over 53 years. In
countries around the globe UNICEF provides much needed food, money and other
supplies for children and their families in the worst possible need.
In Afghanistan, for example, there are nearly five
million victims of the Taliban who without assistance will become a
humanitarian disaster when the cold, hard Afghanistan winter sets
in.
This Halloween I would ask all Canadians to be
particularly generous when neighbourhood children with UNICEF boxes knock on
their doors. Ignorance and poverty breed hatred, and hatred is the true enemy
in this campaign.
* * *
[Translation]
Canada Post
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this year Canada Post will celebrate its
20th anniversary. I think the Canada Post Corporation should use this
opportunity to treat its rural letter couriers and suburban service providers
fairly and give them the right to collective bargaining in order to obtain
decent working and living conditions.
Members will agree with me that 20 years' of service in
a world like ours takes loyal employees such as the rural letter couriers and
suburban service providers, who have clearly not been entitled to benefits or
even minimum wage.
This is why I hope Canada Post will begin its 21st year
on the right foot by giving these employees the right to collective bargaining
as an expression of its gratitude.
I will shortly be introducing a bill in this regard,
and will be asking my colleagues to support it.
* * *
[English]
Terrorism
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Parliamentarians for Global Action, of
which I am chair of the Canadian chapter, is an international network of
parliamentarians from over 100 countries with a mandate to promote a broad
human security agenda.
Parliamentarians for Global Action adopted a resolution
on the terrorist attacks of September 11 pledging the support of its members
for the international effort to combat terrorism including, first, calling on
all governments to join the United States in identifying and bringing to
justice the perpetrators of this crime against humanity; second, developing a
co-ordinated strategy to halt international terrorism, including targeted
sanctions, the freezing of financial and other assets and the selective and
legal use of force; and, third, urging all people to refrain from attributing
guilt by association and retaliating against any ethnic, national or religious
groups and their communities and to maintain their commitment to dialogue,
understanding and the preservation of an open and tolerant society.
In a word, PGA regards the raison d'être of
anti-terrorism law and policy as protective of human security, including both
national security and civil liberties, and as involving a multilayered and
multilateral diplomatic, legal, political and economic effort to underpin
it.
* * *
Sale of Poppies
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 70th anniversary of
Canadians proudly wearing poppies. Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae immortalized
the poppy in his famous poem In Flanders Fields. The poppy symbolizes
the sacrifices that have been made so that we can enjoy our freedoms
today.
The Pickering Public Library Board has in my opinion
insulted the Royal Canadian Legion by classifying this fraternal service body
as a charity. This year, 2001, is the 75th anniversary of the Royal Canadian
Legion and the 70th anniversary of the poppy. Every public establishment in
Canada should consider it an honour to participate in the sale of
poppies.
* * *
Public Service Awards
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in 1966 the Government of Canada
introduced the Outstanding Achievement Award. This award, considered to be the
most prestigious award in the public service, is presented annually as part of
the Public Service Awards and Recognition Program managed by the Treasury Board
of Canada Secretariat.
On Tuesday, October 16, five senior public service
employees were recognized for their exemplary accomplishments and their
sustained commitment to excellence.
Cited for their outstanding achievements are: Peter M.
Boehm, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade; Rachel Corneille
Gravel, Veterans Affairs Canada; David A. Dodge, formerly with Health Canada
and currently with the Bank of Canada; Warren Edmonson, Labour Program, Human
Resources Development Canada; and Dr. John Brian Morrissey, Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada.
I know all members of the House join me in
congratulating these very worthy recipients.
* * *
(1410)
John Haidar
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, this Wednesday, October 24, Mr. John
Haidar will receive the 2001 Citation for Citizenship, an award recognizing
those who help newcomers adapt to Canadian society.
Mr. Haidar came to Canada from his native Lebanon in
1977 and became a Canadian citizen in 1980. In 1987 he became actively involved
in assisting immigrants with the application process. He has, on a volunteer
basis, worked with the local citizenship and immigration office to develop
effective procedures to assist new immigrants. He has also worked closely with
the Arab Canadian Intercultural Orientation Centre and the Windsor Islamic
Association.
Over the years he has assisted over 700 new immigrants
to the Windsor area, not only with the immigration process but also in their
efforts to find employment, access health care and education. His efforts have
been an exceptional asset to our community.
I extend my congratulations to John Haidar on the
occasion of this well deserved award.
* * *
[Translation]
North Shore Economy
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the North Shore is currently facing an
economic downturn, primarily because of the world iron crisis. Businesses have
stopped work, and hundreds of jobs have been lost.
In Sept-Îles, the mining company, IOC, has stopped work
on the biggest construction site in the world, the refurbishing of the pellet
plant. Over 900 construction workers are without work. The reopening that had
been planned for 2002 has been delayed, and the 140 jobs involved put on
hold.
The federal government must provide immediate funding
in order to help businesses in the riding that are doing everything they can at
the moment to keep their heads above water.
* * *
[English]
Multiculturalism
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I remind all Canadians of the value of
tolerance, respect and cultural diversity. Our country's diversity
distinguishes it from most other countries. Our diversity has been a
fundamental part of the Canadian landscape since its beginnings.
Since the tragic events of September 11, the problem of
racial discrimination has become even more salient. Threats to the physical and
emotional safety of individuals cannot be allowed if we are to maintain the
tolerance that defines the spirit of our great nation. Now more than ever
Canada's future depends on maintaining and strengthening its capacity to bring
together people with many differences.
No one's identity or cultural heritage should be
compromised. I ask that all members of the House unite to promote the
fundamental belief that all Canadians are equal. Our diversity is an
indispensable asset.
* * *
Employment Insurance
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, this is the time of year when many
Canadians throughout the country who live in areas where there is a lot of
seasonal employment find that they have not had enough work this year to
qualify for employment insurance.
The minister the other day told the House the
government had programs in place. There is nothing in place to help those who
have not qualified for employment insurance, unless one lives in the district
of the Minister of Industry who apparently is using ACOA money to provide
programs that give people benefits.
I have no problem with that. I am glad the people in
that area of the province did very well. However if it is fair for them it is
fair for every other seasonal employee in the country. The minister should be
careful because if he is to help the Minister of Industry he should also help
foreign affairs, health, heritage, culture and finance, just to make sure we
have a level playing field in the leadership race.
* * *
National Quality Month
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, October is National Quality Month. It was
established to promote organizational excellence, increased productivity and
healthy workplaces in Canadian public and private organizations.
As part of National Quality Month this week has been
designated Canada's Healthy Workplace Week. Sponsored by the National Quality
Institute, the events of this week will encourage healthy workplace practices.
Such practices include not only the physical work environment but also social
atmosphere, management practices and an improvement in individual lifestyles of
employees.
The health and well-being of employees are vital to
productivity and the achievement of excellence. I encourage all Canadians to
take a few moments to think about how they can work together toward a healthier
work environment.
* * *
(1415)
Joe Shoctor
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton
Centre-East, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Edmonton today is known as the city of
champions because it has been blessed by the efforts and convictions of many
who have worked tirelessly to support and encourage world class public venues
from sports to theatre.
Tonight a tribute will be held in Edmonton for one true
champion of the community. Tonight the late Joe Shoctor's name will be
honoured, and rightly so. From modest beginnings Joe has left his mark for all
time on Edmonton's sport and theatrical scenes. He has been particularly
recognized for his civic achievements by being honoured with the Order of
Canada and the Alberta Order of Excellence. Edmonton's world famous Citadel
Theatre, being located on Shoctor Alley, needs no further mention.
Tonight a tribute will be held for a true Edmonton
champion. Tomorrow and forever his name will be etched on Edmonton's honour
roll of excellence. Joe Shoctor, a businessman, a visionary and an artist,
helped paint the canvas of the vibrant city of Edmonton today. Joe Shoctor is
an Edmonton champion.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
National Security
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we were pleased to hear that the Prime
Minister has finally agreed to have talks with President Fox of Mexico and
President Bush along the issue of creating a secure perimeter. We are pleased
with that development and that change.
Unfortunately, he did not make that announcement here
in the House of Commons. He made that, as is somewhat their pattern, outside of
the House of Commons. As a matter of fact, he made it behind closed doors in
China.
Will the Prime Minister now please grant us the
courtesy in the House of Commons to announce that he indeed has a change of
policy and will be pursuing a secure perimeter for continental North
America?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not announce at the
APEC summit any change of policy. He simply said that the government would be
carrying on talks with Mexico and the United States on a number of areas to
work jointly on the fight against terrorism. It could be that border issues
would come up during these discussions, but there has been no decision made on
any change of policy. My hon. friend is mistaken.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
He should not keep blaming the media, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
The premiers of Quebec, British Columbia and six other
provinces want the federal government to take action on the security perimeter
question.
Can the government promise that it will hold a
federal-provincial summit on the question of a security perimeter before any
meeting takes place with our North American partners?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is a wholly federal jurisdiction. The
federal government will assume its responsibilities, even if it wishes to seek
the opinions of the opposition parties or the provinces.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we hear reports continually about
suspected terrorists hiding in Toronto, or in Fort McMurray or simply roaming
the countryside.
Will the Prime Minister please commit here in the House
today that any discussions with our North American partners on securing the
perimeter will definitely include changing the laws and the policies in Canada,
so that we can detain and deport, if necessary, those who are deemed
dangerous?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we know there is legislation before our
parliament to tighten up our refugee and immigration system. We know that
further announcements have been made by the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration. There is other legislation before the House.
I think we are acting very vigorously and responsibly
as are our partners, like the United States. They have to tighten up their laws
too based on the facts and evidence we know about in the press.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we learned from immigration documents and
the media that three men in Fort McMurray may have been connected with the
September 11 attack on the United States. Canadians had to learn from the
Sun newspapers that Nabil Al-Marabh, who was freed by the government's
Immigration and Refugee Board, may be the chief al-Qaeda operative in North
America and living in Canada. We also learned from the media that Mohammed Atta
may have been working in Toronto.
When will the solicitor general put aside his canned
answers and offer Canadians the information they need to know about the threats
that exist here?
(1420)
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is big on mays, but it
is pretty hard to be definite on mays or perhaps.
My hon. colleague is well aware that the RCMP and CSIS
are working with the FBI and all other security agencies around the world to
make sure people who could be connected with terrorism are brought in for
questioning and, if they need to be arrested, they will be arrested.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general cannot hide behind
the cover of saying that investigations are ongoing. Canadians are learning
more about the current security crisis from the American officials, our own
media and British websites than they are from the Liberal
government.
When will the minister put aside his scripted answers
and begin offering real information to Canadians about the threats here in
Canada?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague does not like the
answer, but it is pretty difficult for me to say there is not an investigation
going on. The fact of the matter is, this is the largest investigation in the
history of this world. Our RCMP and security intelligence agencies are working
with other security intelligence agencies around the world to make sure that
these people are brought to justice.
* * *
[Translation]
Anti-terrorism
Legislation
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, before adding any sunset clauses to the
anti-terrorism bill, the Prime Minister states that there must be a guarantee
that “in three years there will no longer be any problem with
terrorism”.
Such a guarantee is not necessary because with the
sunset clauses even the most controversial clauses could be renewed if
necessary.
Will the Minister of Justice admit that the Prime
Minister's reasoning does not hold up and that sunset clauses are indeed
necessary to protect rights and freedoms as much as possible?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and I have been quite
clear that the preferred approach of the government is a review at the end of
the three year period.
However, the Prime Minister and I have been equally
clear that we are very interested in the advice and recommendations from both
the House of Commons and the Senate committees. We will take that advice very
seriously when it is provided to us.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, if any guarantees are needed, they relate
to rights and freedoms because the terrorist threat, as we now know it, could
no longer exist in three years.
Under these circumstances does the Minister of Justice
realize that sunset clauses offer the most important guarantee, the guarantee
of better protection of rights and freedoms, our best weapon against
terrorism?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, the government does
believe that the three year review period is the appropriate guarantee and
review mechanism. However, we have also made it very plain that this
legislation needs to be carefully reviewed and studied by both the House of
Commons and the Senate committees. We look forward to the advice and
recommendations that both those committees will provide us.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the United States, which suffered an
unprecedented attack on September 11, and France, which has been the target of
numerous terrorist attacks in the past, did not hesitate to include sunset
clauses in their special legislation.
Why would Canada, which prides itself on being a model
when it comes to protecting human rights, refuse to include sunset clauses to
protect these rights over time, as other countries are doing?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, some democracies have
sunset clauses, some do not. Our recommendation to the Parliament of Canada is
a three year review clause.
I come back to the point that the Prime Minister and I
have reiterated in the House that we are interested in hearing what the House
of Commons committee and the Senate committee have to say. We will listen very
carefully and study very closely the advice and recommendations of both
committees.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, since the tragic events of September 11,
the government has been telling us that we must not give in to terror and that
we must change nothing in our way of life.
Does the government realize that it has fallen into
this trap itself by dangerously encroaching on civil liberties and by changing
our way of life without giving any clear guarantees that this special
legislation will only apply for a limited time period?
(1425)
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny that the government,
in its anti-terrorism legislation, is trampling civil liberties or fundamental
freedoms. We believe everything in our anti-terrorism legislation is within the
spirit of the charter of rights and freedoms and within those values of any
free democratic society.
To go back to the earlier point, we have indicated our
preferred option for a review mechanism. I understand that this is an issue on
which reasonable people of good faith can disagree. Therefore, we look forward
to hearing the advice and recommendations of the two committees reviewing this
legislation.
* * *
International Aid
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the world looks on with horror as the
number of Afghanis threatened with starvation continues to grow. UN officials
estimate that this could be as many as 5.5 million people. Food aid workers on
the ground estimate it to be as high as 7.5 million.
At the very least will the Canadian government consider
calling for a halt in the bombing to allow emergency food aid to reach the
millions who will otherwise literally starve to death?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the plight of the
Afghan people. We have long been concerned. They have gone through years and
decades of conflict. Every effort is being made to provide humanitarian
aid.
The government, through CIDA and through my department,
which is providing aircraft for humanitarian aid, is doing so. However, at the
same time, we need to continue the counterterrorism plan to flush out the
terrorists and to suppress terrorism so that the people in this country, in the
United States and in the free world can feel safe and secure from the kind of
terrorist activity we saw on September 11.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, winter is closing in on starving Afghanis.
UN food stock is down to a two week supply. Millions are threatened with
starvation and only a halt in the bombing will allow the necessary food relief
to get into Afghanistan. Oxfam is calling for the halt, so are others;
Christian Aid, Islamic Relief, Action Aid and UN officials on the
ground.
Will Canada respond to this monumental human tragedy by
supporting the call for a halt in the bombing?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Defence
pointed out, it is not only possible but necessary to at one in the same time
fight against terrorism and provide support for Afghan refugees.
This is our approach, this is what we support and this
is what the free world supports.
* * *
Health Canada
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, respecting the drug Cipro, the Minister of
Health has admitted that he gave his officials “the direction to stockpile the
drug”.
When he gave that order, did the minister know his
officials were contemplating a purchase that would break the Canadian law
protecting patents? Did he seek advice from the law officers of the crown
before directing his officials to break Canadian law?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, obviously the absolute priority for me is
the health security of Canadians. I want to make it clear that the emergency
response officials at Health Canada acted in good faith in taking the steps
they did to stockpile medications needed for health security reasons. There are
different versions as to what happened. That will eventually be sorted out.
I would like to make it clear that I have directed all
the interested parties to meet to resolve these issues to assure everyone that
everything was done lawfully, and that is exactly what is going to be
done.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, is the minister trying to tell us that the
administration of his department is in such a state of chaos that he is
allowing officials to violate the Patent Act without notifying him, consulting
him, or without him even knowing about it? Who is running the shop in that
department?
Has the minister established a contingency fund to deal
with legal proceedings that may be launched by Bayer or Apotex?
(1430)
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can only reaffirm that our priority on
this side of the House is to make sure that the health security of Canadians is
protected. We will do that. That means, including other things, the
accumulation of medications that may be necessary. I can assure the House that
we are making every effort.
I have told officials to meet with the companies to
resolve outstanding disputes and ensure that everything is done to protect
health security within the law.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in spite of the minister's soothing words,
his credibility has suffered a serious setback. He first explained the illegal
contract for anthrax medicine by saying that he could not get what he needed
from the legal patent holder. He said that he had even asked them twice and
they could not supply it.
It turns out that was not true at all. Now his story is
he knew nothing about the illegal contract. Now let the minister explain this
clear and glaring contradiction.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are differing versions at the moment
of what happened. We know what happened and in the fullness of time so will the
House.
In the meantime, I have directed officials to meet with
the companies in question to try to resolve all outstanding disputes, and I am
confident that that can be done.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance):
Well, Mr. Speaker, how can the government pretend to
enforce law and order when one of its own ministers gives out a story that
turns out not to be true and enters into an illegal contract, breaking the
patent law of the country? Is this what the Government of Canada condones in
one of its ministers?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member will see that everything that I
said will be borne out. I can only assure her and the House that we are
confident that the discussions which I have directed officials to undertake
will be successful.
* * *
[Translation]
Anti-terrorism
Legislation
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the deputy information commissioner stated
in an interview that the anti-terrorism legislation could result in what he
described as a “massive contravention of the Access to Information Act”. This
statement is in line with that of the privacy commissioner, who expressed
similar concerns last week.
When two commissioners express reservations as serious
as these, is this not enough for the minister to realize and accept the fact
that her bill warrants serious review and must include sunset clauses to limit
the life of it?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, obviously I respect the views of the
privacy commissioner and the access commissioner. They will have the
opportunity to appear before both the House committee and the Senate committee
this week. I look forward to reading their testimony to see what advice and
recommendations they may have for us.
However I come back to the point on which the hon.
member concluded. We made it plain that we believe a review process is more
than adequate to ensure the protection of Canadian rights and freedoms. We look
forward to hearing what the committees have to say in relation to this
matter.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne
(Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we all know very well there are
requirements for confidentiality in the fight against terrorism. Does the
minister not understand, however, that what we disagree with is her deciding
alone on control of information?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, my ability to issue
a certificate is only in exceptional circumstances in relation to a limited
type or category of information surrounding international relations or
information in relation to national security.
However, as I said in relation to certain other
matters, I know the concerns of the access and privacy commissioners. I know
the concerns expressed by the Bloc. I look forward to what the committees have
to recommend.
* * *
Health
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has a headache on
his hands and it will likely take more than a few aspirins to clear it
up.
Today he is working feverishly behind the scenes to fix
the mess but to do that he may end up paying out big dollars either to break a
contract or for breaking patent rights. That is money that belongs to Canadians
for their health and safety. It is enough also to give each of us a
headache.
Why are taxpayers on the hook for his
mistake?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member should not jump to conclusions.
We are stockpiling medications for health security reasons. We will continue to
do that.
We will make sure that our health security needs are
met. We will do that lawfully. There are disputes at the moment among
companies. I have directed officials to resolve those. I am confident they will
be resolved. The bottom line is that our health responsibilities will be
met.
(1435)
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the company that was given the illegal
contract said that it began production and that it will sue if the minister
backs out. Will Canadians now end up paying twice for the same stockpile of
medicine?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are concerned to see that Canadians get
value for their money. I am confident they will. I am confident the present
disputes can be resolved. Most important of all, I am confident that we will
meet our responsibilities to Canadians to ensure the security of their health
needs.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the government has stirred up controversy
by announcing that it bought drugs from Apotex so as to be ready for any
possible anthrax contamination.
But Bayer already markets a drug for this purpose which
is protected by the Patent Act. The announcement was made without anyone having
checked with Bayer as to its capacity to deliver large stocks
rapidly.
How does the Minister of Industry explain that the
Minister of Health deliberately violated the Patent Act?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the security of Canadians' health,
including the need to stockpile the drugs necessary to protect that health, is
naturally my top priority.
Health Canada officials acted responsibly. There are
certain problems between the companies. I have asked officials to resolve these
problems and I am confident that an agreement will soon be reached.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the health argument does not cut it
because, on the one hand, the federal government is getting ready to buy
unapproved copies of a drug and, on the other, Bayer is manufacturing a drug
approved by Health Canada and can respond immediately to the federal
government's needs.
Only one question remains. What was the real reason
behind this political decision?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and the House
of Commons that we intend to resolve this matter responsibly. More importantly,
however, we also intend to fully protect the health security of
Canadians.
* * *
[English]
Immigration
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration made a big media splash about the maple leaf ID card for landed
immigrants so that they could come and go in and out of Canada without a
passport.
In typical Liberal half measure style, the proposed
card is not state of the art and is in fact a low tech, easily duplicated piece
of plastic that may cause more trouble than it attempts to solve.
Why did the minister not insist that the card be tamper
proof?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member opposite that
the new maple leaf card is state of the art, that it does have capabilities to
ensure that it is fraud resistant and tamper resistant and further that it has
biometric capacity as well as compatibility with U.S. technology.
However I want to discuss with the privacy commissioner
before we move on any of those features.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the so-called smart card is really a dumb
card. Credit card fraud and the production of fake charge cards have been
around for years. The minister's card is no innovation at all; no embedded
fingerprint or iris scan in the card.
Why is the minister going to give Canada a dumb card in
maybe about two years rather than a smart card right now?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the new maple leaf card, which will be
distributed in late spring of next year, just a few months from now, will be
state of the art. It contains dozens of security features that frankly I do not
want to discuss publicly because by discussing them publicly it will make it
more difficult to secure the card.
The member opposite, perhaps at committee, might want
to ask for a discussion of the new maple leaf card but I am not sure that
members would want to have all the information about all the security
features.
* * *
(1440)
Communications Security
Establishment
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
National Defence.
Last week the government announced additional funding
for the Communications Security Establishment. Could the minister today
elaborate on this announcement?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the $37 million will help to buy new
equipment for the Communications Security Establishment. It is an important
organization within the government. It comes under the jurisdiction of defence
but it works with our allies, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia
and New Zealand.
We need to be on the leading edge of technology to make
sure that we get the kind of intelligence, the kind of information that we need
to be able to counter terrorism. This will give us the tools to do that.
* * *
Bill C-36
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice
who has said repeatedly that she wants to listen to the advice and
recommendations of the committee but she knows that the committee will not be
giving advice or making recommendations. The committee will either be amending
the legislation, Bill C-36, or not.
Is the minister prepared to say in the House that she
will accept amendments coming from the committee that have to do with
sunsetting certain controversial clauses of the bill? That is what the House
and the committee needs to know.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the committee has a number of options
available to it, one of which is to propose amendments to the House in relation
to the legislation. The other option is that it can provide advice and
recommendations to the government and the government can propose amendments to
the legislation.
I have tried to be very open with the House committee
and again this morning with the Senate committee. I look forward to hearing the
views and advice of both committees. If the hon. member has amendments to
propose and if we think they improve the legislation we will certainly consider
them very seriously.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, we may have amendments to propose but I
think government backbenchers on the committee need to know that the government
is truly open to amending the legislation. The Prime Minister's remarks did not
exactly help in that respect.
Is the Prime Minister still open to the legislation
being amended, having certain clauses sunsetted if that is the will of the
committee? The House needs to know that otherwise the committee process will be
a sham.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister and I have both
been clear that we believe the three year review mechanism is the appropriate
one. However I believe we have both been equally clear that we are open to
advice and recommendations from either the House or the Senate committees. If
the House committee chooses to make recommendations in relation to amendments,
we as the government will consider those and we will consider them with an open
mind.
I hope our goal is the same, which is to have the most
effective and yet the fairest anti-terrorism legislation possible.
* * *
Health
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health just said twice
that there are different versions of what happened with regard to the Cipro
issue. What are those versions and which one does he believe?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I believe the true version and I want the
member to know that only one version is true.
I also want the member to know that we are doing
everything we can to resolve the disputes that are in place at the moment. I
also want to assure the House that despite the back and forth, our bottom line
is health security. We are keeping our eyes on our responsibility and we will
meet our responsibility.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, this is no laughing matter. It is a
serious issue. The minister will just have to swallow the pill on this one. It
has gone on and on.
With all the differing versions we want the truth. Who
is making the pill right now in case we need it and who will pay for
it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we will have sufficient pills to protect
Canadians. We will stockpile the pills that we think are necessary and we will
do that in a responsible fashion.
I do not want the House to think for a moment that we
are going to lose sight of our most important responsibility. I announced last
week that we will be stockpiling medications and that is exactly what we will
do so that Canadians have what they need when they need it.
* * *
Immigration
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we know that more than 70% of refugee
claimants who are not accepted by the government never leave our country. The
British government has recently pledged to remove more than 24,000 illegal
immigrants.
When will the minister of immigration announce her
intention to remove people who are in this country illegally?
(1445)
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have asked the member opposite to table
any evidence that he has to support the premise of his question. He is
absolutely wrong.
Canada's number one priority is the removal of anyone
who poses any kind of criminal threat to Canada's security. Our second priority
is the removal of failed refugee claimants. Our third priority is the removal
of others without status.
I challenge the member to table the evidence that is in
the preamble to his question.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister ought to read the performance
reviews that come from her own department. That is where those figures in fact
came from.
Just last week a man who has been facing deportation
since 1997 escaped from government custody. Since 1996 Askan Forsat, who
remains at large, compiled a lengthy and violent criminal record while he was a
guest in Canada at taxpayer expense.
Why will the minister not make public safety her top
priority?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, public safety is the number one priority
of my department. I point out to the member opposite that in the last five
years we have removed 45,000 people. Last year alone 8,636 individuals were
removed, 1,700 of whom were criminally inadmissible, and the rest were either
failed refugee claimants or those without status.
* * *
[Translation]
Humanitarian
Assistance
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the UN secretary general personally issued
an urgent appeal to member states on September 27.
The UN and its agencies need over $900 million Canadian
to help approximately seven million Afghans who are relying on international
assistance for their survival. As of Friday, the UN still had only received 11%
of that amount.
If the government truly wants to exercise the
leadership that it can, should it not focus its efforts on humanitarian
assistance and truly support the work of the UN in that regard?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
question.
First, when the United Nations said that they would
need so many hundreds of millions of dollars to help Afghan refugees, that was
assuming a worst case scenario, that was if all Afghans were to leave their
country.
Under the existing circumstances, Canada has so far
given $16 million in humanitarian assistance for Afghan refugees. Canada has
always been there for Afghans. We have given $150 million over the past
ten—
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Mercier.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that out of 22 countries that
provide humanitarian assistance, based on relative wealth, Canada ranked 18th
in the year 2000.
Quebecers and Canadians are disturbed by the bombings,
because they see the impact on civilian populations.
When will Canada make a meaningful
contribution?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada and Canadians are concerned by this
issue.
Over the past 10 years, Canada has contributed $150
million in humanitarian assistance to Afghan refugees and their
country.
As for what is now being done for Afghans and refugees,
not only did Canada give $16 million, but that money has already been
allocated, which is not necessarily the case with other countries that promised
money, but that have yet to come up with it. As for Canada, it has delivered—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary
West.
* * *
[English]
G-8 Summit
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in a short nine months Kananaskis, Alberta
will be host to the G-8 summit. To date the Alberta government has received no
formal commitment of financial support from the federal government. Quite
obviously, given recent world events, heightened and costly security measures
are needed now more than ever.
When will the government quit ignoring Alberta's
demands and put funding commitments for the Kananaskis G-8 summit in
writing?
(1450)
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Calgary police service and the RCMP
have established a joint operation to assure the security of the G-8 summit.
Discussions on reimbursement to Alberta and Calgary are under way.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister obviously does not know what
the Calgary police service is doing.
The G-8 summit in Italy cost $225 million. The Quebec
summit of the Americas cost $100 million. Amazingly, Quebec is still trying to
recover money from the government's broken funding promises.
I would like to know what guarantees the government is
prepared to make so the people of Calgary, Canmore and Alberta will not be left
holding the bag like Quebecers were.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that the
Government of Canada will stand up to its commitments. I can also assure my
hon. colleague that discussions are under way with the Alberta government and
the city of Calgary on reimbursement. A joint service has been established
between the police service in Calgary and the RCMP to make sure we have the
proper service and security in place.
* * *
Trade
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister for International
Trade along with his counterpart from Singapore announced that they were going
to look into the possibility of free trade between Canada and Singapore. Could
the parliamentary secretary tell the House what happened to those discussions
and where we are at this point in time on this issue?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at APEC this past weekend in Shanghai,
Singapore's Prime Minister Goh and the Prime Minister of Canada announced the
intention of our two countries to begin negotiations on a bilateral trade
agreement. Such an agreement would be the latest in a series of ongoing
bilateral agreements that Canada has successfully negotiated. It would give us
market access via Singapore to a very important region of the world. We look
forward to an early conclusion to these negotiations.
* * *
Anti-terrorism
Legislation
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the justice minister said
that the government would be open to any suggestions that might improve the new
anti-terrorism bill. In particular, she left the door open to a sunset clause
which could limit some of the more controversial aspects of the bill. Yesterday
however, the Prime Minister said that he rejects the idea of a sunset clause.
This not only contradicts his own justice minister, but it has also shanghaied
the work of the justice committee.
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to allow the
committee system to do its work on the most important bill that will be placed
before this parliament?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister made plain was
that we as a government believe that the appropriate review mechanism is a
three year review of the entire legislative package. However both the Prime
Minister and I have made it absolutely plain in the House that we are very
interested in the work that both the House and the Senate committees are doing.
We look forward to any advice, recommendations, or as the hon. member for
Winnipeg--Transcona has suggested, perhaps amendments that would improve this
legislation.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that we should
trust him to conduct a legislative review of Bill C-36 in three years.
I wonder if we could just examine the record on this.
Criminal code amendments regarding mental disorders should have been reviewed
five years ago by the government. They have not been. Criminal code amendments
pertaining to sexual offence proceedings are overdue by a year. Employment
Equity Act amendments should have been reviewed by a similar committee. They
are also overdue by one year. The Referendum Act should have been reviewed six
years ago and the government has still not reviewed it.
Given that the government continues to honour these
things only in the breach, why should we trust it now?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, we do believe the review
mechanism is the appropriate one. That review can be carried out by a House of
Commons committee, a Senate committee or a joint committee.
I would presume that parliamentarians would take their
obligations seriously and take up that opportunity to review the legislation
after three years.
* * *
[Translation]
Water Contamination
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, nearly three years ago now, the Minister
of Transport promised to deal with the problem created by his department's
pollution of the water table in the beaches sector of Sept-Îles.
The minister promised to assume his responsibilities
and take a lead role in the matter.
Now that the municipal council of Sept-Îles has
unanimously voted to demand the payment of $2.5 million from the minister to
remedy the situation, what is keeping the minister from assuming his
responsibilities and paying this amount that is owing?
(1455)
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is well aware, we
have offered alternatives to the affected residents. That is the position of
the federal government.
We continue to work with the population of the region
on finding a long term solution.
* * *
[English]
Natural Resources
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I understand the Minister of Natural
Resources led a trade mission of energy companies to Mexico last week. Why did
the minister choose Mexico, why now and what was accomplished?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it was my honour to lead a very positive
Canadian energy business mission to Mexico last week. It was very well received
by the Mexican government and by the private sector in Mexico. It was very well
participated in by 25 Canadian energy businesses that travelled with
me.
Canadian energy business activity already exceeds $1
billion in Mexico. There is great potential for more. To position ourselves
well in that market we need to be present in person, persistent and patient to
establish the lasting foundations upon which future business opportunities will
be built. I believe we did that last week.
* * *
Canadian Forces
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, there may be a role for Canadian
peacekeepers in Afghanistan as part of any United Nations mission to rebuild
that country. Canada will not be able to keep that commitment if our forces
currently deployed complete their full missions.
Could the Minister of National Defence inform the House
today what current commitments we will have to drop to put soldiers into
Afghanistan as peacekeepers?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that question is far too premature because
there is no determination of a peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan.
I clearly indicated that Canada wants to help
Afghanistan get back on its feet. Whether it does that through humanitarian
aid, through CIDA, through helping it establish a civil society or possibly
through peacekeeping, all of those matters are up for consideration.
However, no decision has been made about any
peacekeeping. In fact, the special envoy to the secretary general of the United
Nations does not think a UN mission will be necessary. It is far too premature
to be dealing with that.
* * *
Human Rights
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, very shortly the Supreme Court of Canada
will hear the Gosselin case, probably the most significant test of the charter
of rights involving the rights of four people to adequate food, security and
housing.
It is hard to believe that the federal government is
not intervening to defend the vision of a just society that supports economic
and social rights to which Canada has signed internationally.
Will the Minister of Justice review this case and
intervene positively, including support for the provinces, so that no Canadian
has to live the way Louise Gosselin was forced to live? Will the minister
respond to that?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member is accurate. At this time we
have no intention of intervening in this case.
* * *
[Translation]
Highway Infrastructure
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, there
was a promise that two bridges would be constructed, along with a 14 kilometre
section of Highway 30. This promise has since become a mere commitment to do
the work, and then a call for expressions of interest.
Could the Minister of Transport tell us what stage the
request for information process has reached, and what the deadline is for
completing the 14 kilometre section of Highway 30 and the two bridges? It is
becoming a matter of urgency for the Montreal and Montérégie regions.
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the extension of Highway 30 is a federal
government priority. We are working in conjunction with the provincial
government to determine all the costs and analyze all the facts before
constructing this link that is so needed by Canadians, particularly the
residents of Montreal.
* * *
[English]
National Security
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, eight provincial premiers are leading the
charge on border security and trade flow. The Deputy Prime Minister has
arrogantly declared that this is solely a federal issue.
Why will the government not bring the provinces quickly
to a Canadian border summit before meeting with Mexico and the U.S.?
(1500)
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think I am just speaking in terms of
constitutional reality but we are interested in hearing the views of provinces.
They will be consulted.
By the way, the provinces have their own direct role in
this. Are they attending to the security of the documents they issue like
drivers' licences? Are they ensuring the security of provincially regulated
infrastructure? Let them assure us that they are doing their job. I know we are
doing our job.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker:
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in
the gallery of His Excellency Mihaly Varga, Minister of Finance of the Republic
of Hungary.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Points of Order
Oral Question
Period
[Points of Order]
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in response to a question I asked during
question period, the minister of immigration asked me to table the documents
that backed up my statement that more than 70% of people who were not approved
for refugee status never leave the country.
Those figures are in fact in the minister's own
performance documents. I would just like to ask for the unanimous consent of
the House to table a copy of the performance report as soon as I can get
one.
The Speaker:
If I could make a suggestion, perhaps it would be
prudent for the hon. member to get the copy first and then seek consent of the
House to table the document. These things normally are not given in advance in
my experience. If he would wait, I think it might be prudent.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Interparliamentary
Delegations
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior
North, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
report of the Canadian delegation to two very special meetings held in
Washington in June and July of this year.
The purpose of these meetings was to impress upon our
parliamentarian friends in the United States the harm they were doing with
respect to our forestry industry, particularly softwood lumber, which is one of
our most important industries.
It was also to impress upon our friends in the United
States that this is just one natural resource which goes along with our other
natural resources such as mining, electrical power, oil and natural gas, and
that we cannot look at one natural resource in isolation of another.
I would like to say that on such short notice the
committee staff with whom I work, Carol Chafe, June Dewetering and John
Christopher, were absolutely superb. As Canadian parliamentarians we can be
very proud of the people we have assisting us in the House of
Commons.
* * *
(1505)
Fugitives From Justice In Other Countries
Act
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-403, an act
respecting fugitives in Canada from justice in other countries.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important and time
sensitive private member's bill. Its enactment would require annual reports to
be submitted by the Minister of Justice to parliament on the extent, volume and
progress of extradition requests received by Canada each year.
These reports would be referred to the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights for consideration and a report. The
committee would then recommend that a point of extradition law be referred to
the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion.
There is provision in the bill for the Minister of
Justice to respond to the committee's recommendation for debate in the House of
Commons. This is very much in keeping with the need for transparency and
greater examination of these issues in Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Petitions
Cruelty To
Animals
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition
from citizens of the Peterborough area who are very concerned about cruelty to
pets. The petitioners point to several very highly publicized recent examples
of animal abuse and neglect, some of them sadly in our part of
Ontario.
Frontline workers such veterinarians, humane societies
and others are becoming frustrated with what they face regularly from the
results of animal cruelty. They point out that legislation has been introduced
in the form of Bill C-15 which would allow much more significant consequences
to apply to those abusing or neglecting animals.
They call upon parliament to expedite Bill C-15 to get
it into law and all members of the House to exercise good conscience in so
doing.
* * *
Kidney disease
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition in support of
bioartificial kidney researchers initiated by Ken Sharp from my riding. The
bioartificial kidney is an experimental implant device which would help those
who at the moment depend on dialysis or kidney transplantation.
The petitioners out that 18,000 Canadians suffer from
end stage kidney disease. They call upon parliament to work and support the
bioartificial kidney which will eventually eliminate the need for both dialysis
or transplantation for those suffering from kidney disease.
* * *
[Translation]
Questions on the Order
Paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
(1510)
[English]
Foreign Missions and International
Organizations Act
The House resumed from October 18 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-35, an act to amend the
Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that the question be
now put.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand again to speak
to Bill C-35. As was mentioned the debate on this bill began last Thursday.
When I approached the table today I was told that I had 14 minutes left unless
I was speaking French and then I would have 15 minutes. I will attempt to do
this in English and I should be done in 14 minutes.
The bill does a number of things. One of the main
thrusts of the bill is the implementation of part of the Hughes report. This
summer we went through the Hughes report that dealt with the APEC inquiry. It
made many recommendations.
One of the recommendations dealt with the RCMP. It
recommended the requested statutory codification of the nature and extent of
police independence from government with respect to two different areas: first,
the existing common law practices regarding law enforcement and, second, the
provision and responsibility for delivery of security services at public order
events. Bill C-35 intends to implement the last part of the Hughes report but
not the former part.
RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli dismissed the key
recommendations saying that there was no need in his opinion for statutory
recognition of police independence.
Canadians must have confidence that the RCMP can do its
job. That includes investigating the government in suspected cases of
wrongdoing without fear of interference or reprisal. APEC is not an isolated
incident. There are other examples, such as the airbus affair, that suggest the
government may have improperly interfered with or instructed the RCMP.
A number of books chronicle the politicization of the
RCMP, such as Paul Palango's Above the Law, and Stevie Cameron's On
the Take.
In January 1997 the federal government reached a $2
million out of court settlement with former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in
what we call the airbus affair. It has been almost five years and Canadians
have never learned the truth as to who was ultimately responsible for this
libel suit. No one was ever held accountable for the Liberal government's
suspect political intervention into a criminal investigation of national and
international importance.
For those who may not remember, I will refresh their
memory. In 1995 a letter of request was sent to Swiss authorities signed by
justice department lawyer Kimberly Prost on behalf of the justice minister.
Contained within this letter was a false accusation. It stated:
This investigation is of serious
concern to the Government of Canada as it involves criminal activity on the
part of the former Prime Minister. |
On November 4, 1995, Roger Tasse, Mulroney's lawyer,
contacted the justice minister via telephone to apprise him that they were in
receipt of the letter written to the Swiss authorities. According to news
reports Tasse pleaded with the minister to water down the language and send a
new document to Switzerland. The minister refused. Furthermore in a letter
dated November 8, 1995, to the justice minister Mulroney's lawyer
stated:
In light of the most important,
unjustified and highly damaging statements contained in the request made to the
Swiss authorities, we urge you to personally review the matter and to direct
your department to withdraw the request already made and to present, if that is
the wish of the RCMP, a new request that is more respectful of basic rules of
fairness and decency. |
The justice minister again refused to withdraw the
letter. That resulted in a $50 million lawsuit by Brian Mulroney. Even the
former RCMP commissioner was concerned that the lawsuit would jeopardize the
criminal investigation. He stated:
I have been very concerned about the
potential impact on the criminal investigation of a long and very public civil
process. |
(1515)
The minister again refused to withdraw the letter. A
civil suit proceeded and at the very last moment the justice minister made an
out of court settlement with an apology. This cost Canadian taxpayers $3.4
million. However the letter containing the false accusation was not withdrawn.
The court decision indicated that the request letter was invalid as it had
followed an improper process. Rather than withdraw the letter the former
justice minister appealed the decision.
I know this case may be old news but to date Canadians
have never been given answers. This matter has not been resolved. Nor has
anyone been held responsible except for RCMP Staff Sergeant Fraser Fiegenwald.
We have been left with the impression that Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald who
allegedly leaked this information to author Stevie Cameron was responsible for
the entire airbus scandal including the $3.4 million that this fiasco cost
Canadians.
The facts as far as I understand them do not support
this perception. However the government did nothing to dispel it, especially
after Fiegenwald was conveniently allowed to retire from the force just before
a code of conduct proceeding.
A cloud hangs over the RCMP as a result of airbus and
all the many unanswered questions. It is negatively affecting its reputation. A
cloud also hangs over the Prime Minister, the former justice minister and the
former solicitor general as their involvement in this matter still remains
suspect. Although it is not too late to lift this cloud by allowing the truth
to be known, I am sure the government will never allow an investigation into
this affair.
In 1997 a motion was brought before the standing
committee on justice and legal affairs. The motion originated with my party and
had the support of the Bloc, the NDP and the Tory members of that committee. It
called for an examination of the facts pertaining to airbus. Not surprisingly
the motion was shot down by Liberal members of that committee, particularly the
member for Scarborough--Rouge River who believed that if the
committee--
Mr. Mauril Bélanger:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps the
member should speak in French as in French he might be relevant to the topic of
discussion because at this point he is not. Perhaps the member
could--
The Speaker: I know the hon. member will draw
some connection between the things he is saying now and the bill that is
currently the subject of debate before the House. We are all looking forward to
that.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the member would sit and
listen rather than referring to all the other people around him he would
understand that the bill deals with the RCMP and the cloud that hangs over it.
It deals with the two recommendations that have been brought forward by the
Hughes report.
It is very condemning of the Liberal government when we
talk about airbus and it brings up the rancour of many on that committee
because it is still an issue that has not been dealt with. We are talking about
the politicization of the RCMP and its involvement--
The Speaker:
With great respect to the hon. member, the bill deals
with foreign missions and international organizations. It does not appear to
have a great connection with the RCMP. Perhaps he could elucidate the House on
this point a little further. We would appreciate his comments in dragging the
bill into the debate.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention. If you
take a look at the summary of the bill, it clearly states:
The enactment further provides that
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has the primary responsibility to ensure the
security for the proper functioning of intergovernmental
conferences. |
This refers to APEC. I am sure that if this member
would listen he would hear very clearly. He has to read the bill to see the
correlation.
I would ask, because of the impropriety shown by the
member, that at least a few minutes of my time be put back. I can spend that
time instructing the minister or the member because he is not a minister on the
RCMP and how it is related to the bill. He is in the back row where he will
probably sit forever. The member for Scarborough--Rouge River believed that if
the committee--
(1520)
Mr. Mauril Bélanger:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order. If a
member raises a question of relevance, is it appropriate for the member to whom
the question is directed to respond with personal allegations and asinine
comments as we have just heard?
The Speaker:
We are getting into debate here. I think the hon.
member will have his opportunity in due course.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
Mr. Speaker, I would gladly answer his question in the
question and comment period. If he wants to take a look at the bill, he can
take a look at proposed section 10.1 and he will very clearly find the
reference we are drawing attention to.
Getting back to the committee meeting we were referring
to, the member for Scarborough--Rouge River believed that if the committee
conducted such an inquiry with the police investigation still in process the
RCMP's case might be jeopardized, but the members did agree that at some point
down the road an inquiry should be done.
Guess what, we are still waiting and, believe it or
not, time has not diminished the memories or the magnitude of this scandalous
affair. In fact, now the question is not just the scandalous affair. It is the
question of a possible cover-up.
As I am accustomed to doing in the House, I would like
to quote from an article that appeared in the Edmonton Sun of November
25, 1997. I do so because it is important to demonstrate that the opinions of
this side of the House are shared by others. The article states:
There should be a thorough and public
fumigating of the events surrounding the $1.8 billion purchase of European
Airbus passenger jets by Air Canada during Mulroney's tenure. |
But not solely for the reasons stated
by Mulroney in his interview. |
The purpose of the inquiry in the
former PM's eyes is to get to the bottom of who knew what in Ottawa--with the
trail of incriminating evidence hopefully leading right to the prime minister's
office. |
There certainly is an air of
incredibility surrounding the incident which would have Canadians believe that
a lowly RCMP sergeant was flying solo when he requested the damning letter to
Swiss banking authorities--the letter wherein Mulroney and other top former PC
officials were implicated...We can't blame Mulroney for attempting to clear his
name while at the same time holding the feet of his political tormentors to the
fire...Sadly, there appears to be an unwritten rule in federal politics that
governments don't go digging into the excesses of the previous regime. If only
to prevent receiving the same treatment when they get booted from
office. |
Ottawa's cosy code appears to have
been broken in the Airbus affair. And so it should have been—which is the
second reason why a comprehensive probe is a good idea. The allegations in the
affair, if proven, would amount to one of the biggest political scandals in
Canadian history. |
That's why it's absolutely necessary
to assure Canadians that they aren't true. |
This clearly will not happen if left
to the footdragging of the Ottawa Liberals—who now have as much to answer for
regarding their own behaviour as they do in seeing the RCMP investigation
carried out with commitment and vigor. A thorough, comprehensive and
independent inquiry into all aspects of the Airbus affair is an excellent idea.
Canadians needs to know the truth. |
That said, given what passes for
government in Ottawa these days, there are only two chances of such an inquiry
happening. And slim just left town. |
In other words, what the article is saying is that the
chances of that happening with this federal Liberal government are next to
nothing.
It is absolutely imperative that every member of
government, up to and including the Prime Minister, is subject to the laws of
the land. The public must be confident that the federal government is not above
the law. I thereby call upon the Liberal government to immediately bring in
legislation clearly defining the role and independence of the RCMP in law
enforcement.
I also call upon the government to properly and
effectively respond to the Hughes report and all of its recommendations, not
bury the truth as is customary for the government. Repeatedly the government
has, when convenient or necessary, held back or shut down inquiries. We do not
need to go back to all the different inquiries that it has brought these types
of things into and then forgotten about. We know about the blood scandal and
the Krever report. We know about the defence minister shutting down the Somalia
inquiry. We know about all the other inquiries that have come forward and that
the government has put a lid on.
In regard to the bill we again call on the government
to make changes and to put some of them in the RCMP Act, not just in the
bill.
(1525)
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to talk to Bill C-35,
an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. My
distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough,
has covered much of the law enforcement aspects of the bill and the member for
Saanich--Gulf Islands has addressed the international trade issues on behalf of
the opposition coalition. I will, relatively briefly, bring up a few issues
that are of concern to me.
First, some people refer to this as a housekeeping
bill. I have a hard time accepting it as a housekeeping bill. This would affect
a lot of different aspects of the way we do things, who does what, who is
allowed to do what, the actions of the RCMP and so on. Although it would really
correct or update our domestic laws to meet our international commitments, it
does define a new or a more explicit role for the RCMP and in that way I find
that it is a little more than just housekeeping.
Although I understand the philosophy and the purpose of
the bill, I think it would create a double standard. It is a slippery slope
that the government is getting on, it seems to me, where it would be
establishing two sets of rules. It is saying that Canadians would be subject to
the law of the land but foreigners often would not. It would expand that level
of immunity and quite dramatically extend who would qualify for the immunity.
Under the bill, new organizations and new groups that
are not clearly defined would qualify for immunity from certain aspects of our
laws. In the other bill we have before us, the terrorism bill, Bill C-36, I
notice a line which states that foreigners might not necessarily have to follow
the rules of the firearms control act. I find this a little strange because
Canadians obviously have to abide by these laws. It seems like the government
is going from one bill to another and establishing a dangerous precedent, so we
would have one set of rules for Canadians and another set for many foreigners.
This would go far beyond what we have done before in allowing different groups
and organizations to be recognized for these benefits.
Another concern is that the government had an
opportunity here to address the issue of foreign diplomats who commit crimes or
offences while under the influence. We are all very much aware of the awful
tragedy that happened in Ottawa when a Russian diplomat ran over two
pedestrians, killing one and severely injuring the other. Nothing has happened
about that. There has been no accountability. This person had a long record of
alcohol offences. Nothing was done to prevent the accident and nothing has been
done to hold this person accountable. He was whisked away to Russia very
quickly. When our government demanded an investigation and accountability, the
Russians said if we wanted that we would have to pay them to send their
investigators from Russia to Canada to investigate it. I did not see a lot of
commitment on behalf of that foreign government to address this concern that
outraged many Canadians.
It will be a long time before we have another
opportunity to address these issues. The bill could have done that but it
definitely does not. It does not address any of those issues that raised a lot
of concerns. It just seems so unfair. People were outraged about the accident.
Again, the bill, which reorganizes the Foreign Missions and International
Organizations Act, could have dealt with that but did not.
Certainly Canada has to encourage organizations to come
to Canada to have their meetings, like the G-8, APEC and so on, and perhaps
some of the immunity aspects have to be extended to them. Previously these
immunities have been extended only to organizations and nations with which we
have treaties, not just organizations that are non-structured or mobile and
move around. This makes me wonder what other organizations would qualify for
this immunity from taxes and our laws and who could actually commit crimes and
not be held accountable. It is just a little scary.
I agree that we have to be in a position to attract
these organizations. We are a well respected country and an appealing country
for these types of meetings, being relatively safe and secure. We have to be
able to provide the amenities and competitive immunities.
(1530)
However, it seems to me that the bill goes a little too
far and is not defined enough on who could qualify for these issues. For
instance, it is not clear about interparliamentary meetings and things like
that. Under the bill would all these members be immune from criminal
prosecution or taxation et cetera?
Another aspect of the bill would change the process for
allowing someone with a criminal record to come to Canada. Currently the
minister has to provide a minister's permit to allow a person who has a
criminal record to come to Canada. The outstanding example of this is Nelson
Mandela. Not one of us in the House, I think, would ever question Nelson
Mandela's right and privilege to come to Canada, speak with us and meet with us
in parliament, but he has a criminal record and he required a minister's permit
to allow him to come here. That would no longer be necessary because the permit
would be issued under the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act
and would no longer require the minister's permit.
Another part of the bill that was dealt with by the
hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough was the RCMP aspect. It is a
very important aspect because it very clearly defines who would be responsible
when international guests are here. Many people in Canada were outraged about
the violence and protests during recent meetings in Vancouver and Quebec. There
always was confusion about the chain of command, about who ordered the police
to do what and when, whether it was political, RCMP, local or provincial police
or what. The bill would correct that.
It would remove that question and would allow a lot of
us to have a little more peace of mind when we are inviting meetings to Canada.
I hope it would help us and help them if there would be just one police
department involved with the protests. We hope they would better understand the
rights of protestors to protest and demonstrate. They do have a right to
protest and demonstrate, but with the confusion over who was in control of the
meetings and who was responsible for policing and law enforcement, I think
things happened at the meetings that should never have happened. I believe
having one group in charge would be a positive move. The huge report on APEC
pointed out the need for clear parameters in order for the RCMP to be able to
police these meetings without having to answer to political bosses, provincial
police forces and so on.
It would be a very positive step and I hope the RCMP
will take advantage of the opportunity to better understand how people can be
allowed to protest and demonstrate legitimately without encouraging violence or
demonstrations that turn into anything other than demonstrations.
The legislation appears to cover three general types of
international organizations. There are international organizations originating
by treaty, for instance, NATO and the International Civil Aviation Organization
in Montreal. They are currently covered under the immunity, which would be
extended to a second category, the new international organizations with
headquarters in Canada, like the IOC, the environmental secretariat and
different NAFTA bodies, which are growing steadily.
The third one is stand alone organizations that move
from country to country, like APEC and the G-8. I am not satisfied nor am I
comfortable with how that is defined and what groups could be included. Could
groups involved with the chambers of commerce and things like that come under
that umbrella of immunity? We are anxious to get the bill to committee to
analyze it and see if there are extended immunity rights that were never meant
to be part of the bill.
There is no question that our country should be in a
position to play host to these organizations. I think Canada is an attractive
destination for them. Recently we moved the meeting of finance ministers to
Canada because it could not be held in India. That is just an indication of
what we have to offer.
To wind up, I am concerned about the double standards
between Canadians and non-Canadians. The bill would extend immunity and
taxation exemptions to a number of groups. It seems to ring a bell to me with
extending the immunity or exemption from the firearms control act to
non-Canadians whereas Canadians have to follow those rules. We need more
clarification.
(1535)
On the upside, the bill ensures that Canadian diplomats
receive the same privileges and immunities that their representatives in Canada
receive when our diplomats are in foreign countries. It has an enforcement
clause and that is a good aspect in it.
We support both the purpose and philosophy but we hope
there will be amendments that deal with some of the concerns which I and my
colleagues have raised throughout this debate.
Mr. Leon Benoit:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in response to
the question that the minister of immigration answered earlier. She asked me to
table a document that backed up a statement I made. I have that document and I
ask for unanimous consent to table it so the minister can look at the numbers
and know that what I said was accurate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table
the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague in the
coalition from Cumberland--Colchester. He is not a man who often sings his own
praises, but I will briefly mention that he is very hard-working and is in fact
working on bringing together a conference of individuals from the Middle East,
Palestine and Israel, to talk about a resolution to the ongoing conflict taking
place there. I congratulate him for his hard work on that particular
issue.
I will ask him one question about Bill C-37, that being
the part that was brought up earlier by the member for Crowfoot about the RCMP
and its role in providing security in these kinds of situations. Could my
colleague comment on whether he thinks that is addressed adequately within this
bill or is there more that could be done in that particular area?
Mr. Bill Casey:
Mr. Speaker, first, I will make it clear that I do not
sing at all. I appreciate the comment, but it is an all party effort, with
members of all parties attempting to bring the Israeli and Palestinian members
of parliament to Canada to meet with Canadians. It has already been a rewarding
experience because for eight months Israelis, Palestinians and Canadians have
worked together. We have not accomplished the goal yet, but we have already
made progress.
As far as the question of law enforcement, I am
confident that the clarification of the RCMP as the law enforcement agency
responsible for enforcement in this situation will ensure a much better
reaction and law enforcement situation. Plus, if we have a group of RCMP
specialists in this type of field who specialize in the management of these
international events, they can understand and perhaps use their experience to
improve the process so that protesters can protest and demonstrators can
demonstrate without violence, without damage and without the awful
circumstances involved in recent events.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I too will attest to the hon. member for
Colchester--Cumberland's hard-working approach to all that he does in the House
of Commons. In that regard, he reflects of course the hard-working people of
his province and my native province.
As well, I thank him for the comments he has made
outlining the strengths of the bill to amend the Foreign Missions and
International Organizations Act. However, having delivered the good news to the
hon. member, I was somewhat taken back when he indicated that he did not
believe a thorough investigation has followed the tragic events regarding Mr.
Knyazev's departure from the country and what led to it. I assure the House
that we have been doing everything possible to assure that Mr. Knyazev is
investigated and brought to justice.
In that regard, we have worked closely through the
mutual legal assistance program with the Russian authorities. They have now
completed their investigation and, in accordance with Russian law,
investigators must now review their report with the victim and her family. This
is consistent with their approach.
We have from the outset worked very hard to make sure
that everything was appropriate, that this was a very thorough investigation,
and although it has been extended, there is no concern whatsoever that any
deadlines will be missed in that regard. I do feel it necessary and incumbent
on the hon. member to check his empirical data in future.
(1540)
Mr. Bill Casey:
My empirical data is very simple, Mr. Speaker. There
have been no charges laid and the Russians have not co-operated in the way they
should have. The big one for me was, they said that they would only send
Russian investigators to Canada if Canada paid. That does not show much of a
commitment on behalf of the Russians to see that justice is done. Justice in
this case will only be done if we pay for it even though the charges are
against Russians not against Canadians. The Russians should pay for
this.
However, I am not arguing that the government did not
do what it could within the parameters that were available. The parameters
should change, and they could have been changed under this bill, to give more
access to justice to ensure that justice is done in the event that a crime like
this occurs.
Ms. Aileen Carroll:
Mr. Speaker, I have one last comment. No justice is
rendered if charges are brought prematurely.
Mr. Bill Casey:
Mr. Speaker, no justice is rendered if no charges are
brought.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the
member had to say about these meetings which had to do with the Middle East. It
strikes me as extremely topical. Could he give us a little more information on
them.
Mr. Bill Casey:
Mr. Speaker, this was a series of meetings proposed to
bring Israeli members of the Knesset and Palestinian members of the legislative
assembly to meet with Canadian parliamentarians. It was actually scheduled to
take place last Monday but because of a change in schedules and the volatility
of the situation, we had to delay it for a short time.
I am convinced that both sides are still committed to
do this. As late as this morning, I talked to Israeli and Palestinian
authorities and they are both still committed to come. It will be very
beneficial for all of us if they can.
Again, the magic is that already the Israelis, the
Palestinians and the Canadians have worked together. We have proven we can work
together and make accomplishments, even if it is just a small accomplishment. I
am very optimistic that if we get another chance to enhance this, we will even
do better.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate my friend, the
member for Cumberland--Colchester, on his efforts in bringing together the
Israelis and the Palestinians. As he probably knows, he has taken on a
Herculean task. Nevertheless, every effort helps and at some point will be able
to break the camel's back or one more straw will destroy the enmity between the
Israelis and the Palestinians.
It is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-35. I want to
continue down the same path that my friend from Crowfoot started down. Not long
ago he gave an excellent speech in this place about some of the concerns that
we have about the separation between the people who enforce the law, the RCMP,
and the government.
When there is a real embarrassment facing the
government, if it had the opportunity, the temptation would be to use the RCMP
or any police force to try and cover up that embarrassment. I will not suggest
that this government is prepared to do that, but there have been concerns in
the past and we all know that. I am speaking of the APEC affair or the airbus
affair of which my friend spoke. There was enough evidence in the APEC affair
to warrant our concern about that possibility. In the airbus affair, we saw
evidence that the government did what it could to pursue a former prime
minister to the point where it cost Canadian taxpayers $3.4 million.
In Canada we have taken our freedoms for granted. For a
long time we have lived in relative peace. We have never really been in a
situation, not since Confederation, where our personal liberties have been
seriously threatened. There have been times when there have been bumps along
the road and at various points Canada has entered into great conflicts.
Canadians have always valued their freedom, but unless they are threatened,
after a period of time people tend to take their freedom for
granted.
One of the greatest innovations of modern times is the
idea of limited government. It is important to remember that for a long time in
history the normal course of events was for the monarchy, or the government or
the church to have all the power while individuals had none. Over the last 800
or 900 years we have seen that change. We have seen more and more rights
accumulate to individuals. We should value those rights.
As somebody once said that government is not reasoned.
It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a
fearsome master. I believe that is right. That is founded on what we know from
history. Governments at various times have intervened in the ability of
individuals to pursue their lives as they wished.
Any time a piece of legislation comes along that
suggests that more power should accumulate to the government, in this case via
the RCMP, we should be concerned. We should watch and make sure that we are not
giving away freedoms frivolously or without going trough them to ensure that
there is not some other way that we can deal with this. I submit that there is
a different way that we can deal with this.
One of the things that legislators in general would be
happy to see would be a government that recognized there was concern about its
connection to the RCMP and security forces and that it would take some steps to
ensure that there was, on the one hand, oversight, but on the other hand,
eliminate some of the possible ways that, in this case, the Prime Minister's
Office could interfere via security forces to try to cover up some kind of an
embarrassment. There are ways to do that.
One way would be to involve this place, through our
committees, to ensure that there would be some kind of an oversight capacity.
Some people have suggested that we could set up our own committee to
specifically deal with those types of things.
(1545)
Perhaps it would be a subcommittee of the justice
committee. It is a good idea to have some committee empowered to ensure that
our security forces are not politically interfered with in some way. That is a
critical point because at this point we almost leave it solely to the
discretion of the ministers in charge as to whether or not they can get
involved in some way. We really count on their good will.
I am not suggesting that every day it be challenged in
some way, but there are times when governments could be tempted to intervene
and in so doing start to limit the freedoms of individuals. At a time of crisis
we need to be aware particularly of that possibility.
One possible option would be to set up a subcommittee
or committee to have oversight to ensure that if some of these issues arise we
have a way to look at them and deal with them.
I heard it said in this place by the justice minister
today that there were concerns at this time about whether or not the government
would interfere in the rights of individuals, or something like that. There
have been many times when the government has interfered with the rights of
individuals in Canada. I could point to Bill C-68 and suggest that the
government absolutely and completely interfered with the rights of individuals
when it brought in that legislation. It completely interferes with our right to
private property.
Preceding Bill C-68, and I believe as a part of it, the
government through order in council confiscated people's legally obtained
firearms without compensation. That is completely contrary to the idea of
property rights and the basic freedoms we have established over a long period
of time.
Many people believe our basic freedoms were only
defined in 1981 with the charter of rights. That is completely wrong. We had
hundreds of years of common law tradition before then which really laid down
the ground rules for our basic freedoms. Mr. Diefenbaker brought in a bill of
rights which put those rights down on paper. I argue that the government
violated those rights when it brought in Bill C-68 and started to confiscate
firearms.
I argue that when it comes to endangered species
legislation the government is on the cusp of interfering with our most basic
property rights, again because it is not prepared to offer full compensation
for land that is taken out of production in the hope it can somehow protect an
endangered species. We have no problem with endangered species legislation, but
we believe the government should ensure that the basic rights of people are
protected.
There is no more fundamental right than property
rights. Some people may question that, but I argue that every right is a
property right. My friend from Hamilton nods his head, but every right is a
property right. In fact there is only one right and it is the property right:
the right to the security of ourselves, the right to control our actions, the
right to acquire things. There is but one right and that is a property right in
oneself.
When abolitionists were trying to get rid of slavery
they used to call it man stealing because people were stealing someone else's
person. I argue there is but one right and every other right flows from it: the
right to property. The first right we have is the security of our own person.
The right to freedom of speech flows from that. The right to freedom of
association and the right to keep what we have produced with our hands and our
minds all flow from the same source: the right to private property in
ourselves.
When we set down laws at a time when we are concerned
about having security of our person breached by forces outside our borders, we
have to be careful that we do not at the same time breach them by empowering
our government to do too much. That is my primary concern with Bill C-35 and
actually with Bill C-36 as well, while we are talking about bills presently
before the government.
There are other examples of how government has breached
our rights even since I have been a member of parliament.
(1550)
One thing that was most frustrating to me as an MP, as
someone who comes from the west, was when the government lost a court case over
the Canadian Wheat Board and moved very quickly to plug a loophole through
order in council which effectively ensured that the government could stop
farmers from the great crime of selling the wheat they had produced on their
own land, selling it in that case to someone in the United States.
Even in Canada farmers are not allowed to sell their
own wheat. It all has to pass through the Canadian Wheat Board, which is
completely contrary to the--
Mr. Peter Adams:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been
here for quite some time and I thought we were looking at Bill C-35. Just in
the summary of the bill it says it has to do with foreign missions and
international organizations that allow Canada to comply with its existing
commitments under international treaties and respond to recent developments in
international law. Where is the relevance of the last 10 minutes?
(1555)
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
I ask the hon. member for Medicine Hat to tie
everything he said in the past 10 minutes to the subject at hand.
Mr. Monte Solberg:
Mr. Speaker, if the member cannot see the relevance of
talking about basic fundamental rights whenever we talk about any legislation,
I am afraid I cannot say anything to him that would get the picture across.
Every piece of legislation that comes through this
place has to be screened at some point, and I hope justice department lawyers
do it, to determine whether or not it is in some violation of our fundamental
rights. I can say nothing more than that to clarify it for the hon. member.
The summary of the bill talks about empowering the
RCMP, giving the RCMP new powers which some people are concerned may kick the
door open for political interference by the RCMP in matters that might
embarrass the government. That is really the point I am trying to make. I am
simply saying that there are precedents for governments violating our rights.
One of the rights that have been violated, I would argue again, is a property
right.
Andy McMechan, a Manitoba farmer, was put in chains and
cast into prison for the great crime of selling his own wheat, a violation of
his most basic right to property. It was absolutely ridiculous.
That is my response to my friend across the way who was
wondering whether or not the legislation has any connection at all to the idea
of basic rights. I argue that of course it does.
I go beyond that and touch on something else which my
friend from Crowfoot touched on. He is here right now. He gave a great speech
when he talked about some of these different things. I simply point out that
when it comes to protest, I believe completely that people should have the
freedom to protest.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Order, please. The hon. member for Medicine Hat has the
floor.
Mr. Monte Solberg:
Mr. Speaker, the freedom to protest takes many forms.
The freedom to protest is limited like every other freedom. Every freedom has a
reasonable limit. When protesters in Quebec City started to tear down fences
and break windows, they should have been arrested and charged. They should have
been convicted and sentenced, if in fact they were guilty of those crimes. I
want to make that very clear. No freedom is unlimited. There are reasonable
limits to all of them.
Instead of introducing new limits on freedom, what
should happen is that security forces of various kinds should be given enough
resources to enforce the laws that presently exist.
We do not need more and more laws that restrict our
freedoms. We need adequate resources to enforce the ones we have. We made that
argument in the past about Bill C-68 and other pieces of legislation. No law by
itself will stop people from doing things if they have criminal intent. What
will stop criminals is more police on the beat, more security and more
intelligence gathering. All those things can stop criminals but just passing
laws does nothing in and of itself.
When we are confronted with something like the APEC
protest or the Quebec City protest, the issue is getting more police out there
to ensure that people can protest peacefully and have their say about things,
but the moment they step over the line, trespass on property or vandalize, that
is when the police should step in and do their job.
One of the best examples of how well that can work is
in New York City pre-September 11. Members will remember that when Rudolph
Giuliani was elected as the mayor of New York City quite a while ago it was in
a state of turmoil because there was a tremendous amount of crime. Mr. Giuliani
said that if he were elected he would hire more police and put more cops on the
beat. He did that.
They started charging people for crimes already on the
books. Graffiti artists were arrested and charged. They cracked down on crime.
They cracked down on those who were harassing people on the street. They
cracked down on petty vandalism.
As a result, not only did they deal with petty crime
but the violent crime rate dropped like a stone. That is the point. Making new
laws will not fix everything, but if police are on the beat to enforce the laws
it makes a huge difference. We know that empirically. Common sense tells us
that.
For a long time in my own community we were battling to
get a proper number of RCMP officers. The federal government had cut back
funding to the RCMP. We had a situation where a lot of new people had come to
town and the crime rate went up. Since we brought more police into the
community my understanding is that things have stabilized. I do not know that
crime is going down, but it certainly is not rising the way it was previously.
We are grateful the government is finally starting to
put a bit more money into justice after listening to the Canadian Alliance. I
guess it started to realize that perhaps it is not such a bad investment after
all to put money into these things.
My point is simple. We should not assume that by
creating new laws, and perhaps even violating some of the fundamental freedoms
in which we believe so strongly, somehow some of the problems with crime will
end. It will not happen. We need reinforcement. I conclude by saying that the
government's first role has to be the security of the liberty of people.
(1600)
In fact a lot of people would argue that the security
of people's liberties should be the government's overwhelming and overriding
role. What does that mean? It does not just mean securing their personal
safety, as critical as that is, it also means securing all their fundamental
rights, including the right not to have their lives interfered with by their
own government.
While we are in this period where we are all concerned
about threats from outside the country, we should also be alive to the danger
of interference within the country from our own government.
Mr. John Bryden
(Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think sometimes on this side of the
House I am regarded as a somewhat conservative Liberal in the sense that I am
very much a proponent of financial prudence, of financial transparency. I
deplore the effect special interest groups have on government policy and that
kind of thing.
Having listened to the member for Medicine Hat speak
just now, I realize that despite these, shall we say, conservative tendencies,
I belong on this side and not that side because the member for Medicine Hat
brought in the concept of property rights and individual rights versus
collective rights. If something defines me on this side, and I think defines
the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP and the Conservatives as well, it is the idea that
collective rights have to take priority over individual rights.
The member for Medicine Hat is actually echoing a
philosophy that exists in the United States, indeed, it is actually written in
the constitution of both the state and the federal constitution in the United
States. It is the idea that an individual has vested rights in property against
every other influence.
We on this side of the House, and I think some
opposition members, would think that the collective good actually transcends
the individual's right to his or her own personal advantage.
He mentioned the species at risk legislation in which
property rights may be in collision with the need to preserve species.
(1605)
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg:
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where my friend was going.
Let me simply say that there have been many times, and I did not touch on all
the examples, where individual rights have been breached for the good of the
collective. Let me point to one that may resonate more with the
member.
During the second world war we rounded up Japanese
Canadians, took their property away and sent them to internment camps for the
good of the collective. My point is that everybody should have a personal right
to the security of their person no matter what, as long as they do not violate
the equal rights of every other person to have that same security and freedom.
I want to argue that when we see things like what
happened during the second world war when those people were rounded up, that
was a violation of individual rights because of collective rights.
I want to make the point that when it comes to
endangered species, there would be no collision between private property rights
and the endangered species legislation if the government would simply
compensate people for taking away their property. That is all we are
asking.
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the
comments of my valued friend and colleague. I will refrain from making any
reference to this mantra of free speech or any reference at all to the ability
to speak our minds because I think my friend, more than anyone in the House
perhaps, has come to appreciate this a great deal.
He spoke about the possible interference within
government agencies, particularly the RCMP. We see that time and time again,
even on a bill as important as the new anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-36, where at
the outset of the bill going to committee, both here in the House and in that
other place, the Prime Minister made comments from outside the country as to
the outcome of the deliberations with respect in this instance to the sunset
clause.
My friend also alluded to government becoming too large
and interfering,particularly in property rights. I am reminded of an expression
I heard that any government that is large enough to give us everything we want
is certainly large enough to take everything we have. I think that expression
ran through his speech as well.
Would the member expand further on this concept of
parliamentary ability to do its work? The government and the Prime Minister, in
particular, through his office and through his reach, which we have seen at
APEC where Jean Carle was doing his bidding and through the Shawinigan affair
where the BDC was called upon to make certain interventions, all of that is
very indicative of a government that does not respect parliamentary democracy.
I would encourage my friend to comment further.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
For the few minutes that are remaining, let us come
back to foreign missions and international organizations, please.
Mr. Monte Solberg:
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the section in the bill
that deals with the role of the RCMP and the whole debate we just heard,
reflects the cynicism that members in this place have about the ability of the
House of Commons to deal with issues that are important to the public. Many of
the decisions being made are made by the Prime Minister, by the PMO, outside
this place, and Liberal members are just as frustrated as members on this
side.
I completely support my friend in what he said. The
Prime Minister's comments speak volumes about his respect for the House of
Commons. I think that basically sums it up.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
I would remind members again that we are discussing
foreign missions and international organizations.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think your reminder is timely.
In response to my point of order before, the member is
quite right, everything we do in the House is related to everything else that
we do in the House and it is not difficult to make those relationships. For
example, he has been discussing property rights and endangered species. I am
pleased to see that there is an element of compensation in the current
Endangered Species Act but, as Mr. Speaker just pointed out, this act has to do
with foreign missions and international organizations.
What does the member think about the change in the
legislation in the definition of international organizations? Does he not think
this is an appropriate thing to do at this time?
(1610)
Mr. Monte Solberg:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what that has to do
with property rights.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Robertson is a gentleman in Ottawa who
spent quite a few decades as the privy council president. This past winter he
said that our system of government had evolved into a form of elected
dictatorship and that cabinet had become nothing more than a focus group. I am
concerned that there be a separation between the powers of the police and the
state, especially given the comments made by a very respected person in this
town and one whose opinion I respect.
I just wonder whether we should not really be focused
on separating the power between the dictatorship and the police force and make
sure they work in an arm's length relationship.
I would ask my colleague from Medicine Hat if he has
any such concerns.
Mr. Monte Solberg:
Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the inability of
parliament to insert itself truly into this debate. We are having a debate
today and the minister is not here. None of the ministers are here. We are
sitting here--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
The hon. member is a veteran of the House. He knows
perfectly well that he cannot refer to the absence of any minister nor any
member.
Mr. Monte Solberg:
Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the ability of
parliament to become relevant in these sorts of debates. With rare exceptions,
the decisions are made well before the legislation gets to this place. Again,
Liberal members are just as frustrated about this as we are.
I have talked privately with many Liberal members. When
we go to committee to sit down and talk about making changes to bills, I often
see a parliamentary secretary hovering like a hawk, waiting for any sign that
there might be some deviation from the government line on a piece of
legislation, and if there is, members are brought to heel very quickly. That is
unfortunate. We have competent people on all sides of the House who should be
allowed to do their job, which is to represent their constituents and to use
their talents and skills wisely.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will, upon conclusion of my remarks,
attempt to address some of the concerns that have been raised.
[Translation]
But I will not discuss the price of eggs in
China.
[English]
I think basically that is the kind of thing that has
been brought into the House today. I am disappointed when I hear speakers
complain as they do about their perception of parliament not being relevant and
then go on to list anything but what we are discussing today, which is Bill
C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations
Act.
I would assure the House that as a Liberal member I am
quite able to discuss and put forward my frustrations, such as they may be, and
have never had need for the opposition parties to convey my frustrations. I
have always been able to do that.
To move to the topic at hand, which is Bill C-35, an
act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, I am
pleased to perhaps bring a focus to the discussion today that not only are we
amending an act but we are doing it at a time and within the ambience of the
very tragic events in the United States, which reminded us that threats to
public safety are of a global concern, that no system is infallible and that no
country is immune.
Our commitment is to protect persons who attend
international meetings in Canada. That is our focus and it is very clear. It is
incumbent upon us, when we host any kind of meetings of organizations, to have
the legislative power and authority to ensure the safety of everyone involved.
As was mentioned, Canada is obligated to do so under various international
conventions. The amendments that we brought forward clarify our ability to
fulfill that obligation.
In June 2002, Canada will be hosting the G-8 summit in
Kananaskis, Alberta. This will be the first meeting of world leaders since the
horrendous acts of September 11. In preparing for this event, we will need to
take all necessary steps to protect our international visitors and to ensure
the meeting can take place safely.
These amendments provide clear statutory authority to
support security measures and to ensure public safety and the safety of foreign
delegations at international meetings hosted in Canada such as the G-8
summit.
The amendments also help us to respond with greater
certainty to continuing and growing threats and to public safety in a world
that has so remarkably and fundamentally changed since September 11.
Does the statutory authority to provide security mean
that the police will have broader powers? Absolutely not.
I want to just digress from the notes that I had
planned. I think there is a failure on the part of some members to understand
that the federal government, in this situation, is attempting to umbrella two
systems. One is the common law which we develop according to precedent. The law
is growing and very much, as Thomas Aquinas said, a living thing.
At the same time, the province of Quebec has the code
civile, the Napoleonic code. Instead of developing in a similar way as the
common law, the Napoleonic code has all of what one wants contained in a
statute written down and codified. It is incumbent on the federal government
then to create legislation that recognizes and allows both systems to function
within our ambit.
What I think is causing some concern here with regard
to police powers is that all the authority has been very much in place within
the ambit of common law. What these amendments attempt to do is clarify and
codify in a manner that allows for no confusion. What is happening is that the
confusion is occurring on the other side of the House.
The police have always had the authority to take
whatever necessary and reasonable security measures were required to protect
internationally protected persons and to preserve the peace in order for the
important business of these international events to proceed. These amendments
would simply clarify in statute police powers that are already in
place.
This is also in line with legislation adopted by other
countries, such as Australia and New Zealand which have gone ahead and
clarified police powers in similar circumstances, just as we are going to
contend with within these amendments. This is the prudent thing to do given the
changing nature of international meetings and evolving challenges to global
security.
In traditional diplomatic situations in the past,
frequently the dialogue and negotiations occurred on a bilateral basis.
Therefore, the immunities and all of what was set up within the Vienna
convention were aimed to apply to what was the traditional method of conducting
diplomacy, which was in a bilateral setting.
However, today, as we have evolved more and more, a
great deal of our negotiations and our protocols are an end result of
multilateral negotiations and rather than just occasional multilateral
negotiations, they occur within the ambit of permanent international
organizations that continue on a weekly-monthly basis, many of which have
headquarters in Montreal and in other parts of Canada.
Specifically, the amendments would clarify three
things:
First, the RCMP's role for assuming primary
responsibility to ensure security for the proper functioning of an
international conference attended by internationally protected
persons.
Second, the RCMP's authority to take security measures,
such as controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to an area in a manner that
is reasonable under the circumstances.
Third, they clarify the fact that these statutory
police powers do not affect the powers that the RCMP and other provincial and
municipal police forces otherwise have under common law.
I would like to highlight to the House the tremendous
co-operation that now takes place between the RCMP and its provincial and
municipal counterparts to ensure the safe and secure running of these
events.
The security for the summit of the Americas in Quebec
City, for example, was the largest operation of its kind in recent Canadian
history. It involved a partnership of over 3,600 RCMP members, 2,700 members of
the Sûreté du Québec and 500 members of the Quebec City and Ste-Foy municipal
police forces.
I wish to assure the House and Canadians that the RCMP
will continue to work with its many international, federal, provincial and
municipal partners to provide the most appropriate and effective security
arrangements for all federally hosted international meetings much as it did in
Quebec City.
The threat that faces us in the aftermath of September
11 will not be easily removed. Our actions will be ruled by resolve. If laws
need to be improved they will be. If security has to be increased it will be.
However our actions will continue to be driven by the need to safeguard the
values that we cherish, the values of hope, freedom and tolerance to the
world.
Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
everyone has the fundamental freedoms of, among others, assembly, expression
and association.
These amendments balance the government's need to
ensure public safety and the need to protect an individual's right to
demonstrate, as has been mentioned, openly, publicly but in a safe setting.
They are in no way intended to hinder peaceful protest. Any security measures
taken by the police will still need to satisfy charter requirements: that they
are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
The amendments will help us to respond with greater
certainty to a changed world. They will ensure public safety and the safety of
our visitors at international meetings hosted by Canada. They will build on the
success of partnership that police forces across jurisdictions have
demonstrated at past international events. They will also protect the cherished
values and freedoms that define what is meant by being a Canadian.
I certainly hope that some of the confusion that has
been exhibited in speeches here and at the first reading have been addressed by
my remarks. If not, I would be pleased to answer any questions that my
colleagues may wish to ask.
(1620)
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is aware of
the fact that in times like these the government must respond. We must look at
existing legislation but we need to be careful not to overreact in the area of
the charter of rights and freedoms and the values we all hold dear.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary two questions,
one to do with security and one to do with international organizations.
First, there is an amendment with respect to security
and the powers of our security organizations. Does this mean that until now
police have been unauthorized to protect people who attend high level
international meetings in Canada?
Second, why at this time do we need to extend
diplomatic immunities to international organizations not established by treaty?
(1625)
Ms. Aileen Carroll:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from
Peterborough for his questions. With regard to the security question I would
assure the member that police can provide such protection under common law, as
was mentioned earlier. However the amendment hopes to clarify that power. To
assuage some of the concerns across the way, clarification frequently leads to
a delineation that is meant to make clear that police have a certain authority
beyond which they cannot go. They cannot extend it to levels that would concern
people. Clarification frequently means exactly that. That is all we are hoping
to attain by moving out of the realm of common law and into a codification of
that power.
The second question, a very good one, was with regard
to international organizations that have not been established by treaty. This
allows us to grant immunities and privileges by order. It is not an automatic
trigger. It requires an order to be passed to organizations and
conferences.
For instance, the OSCE, the Organization for Security
and Co-operation in Europe, and the G-8 are organizations that meet frequently
in different places and have not been established by treaty. It almost goes
without saying, but I guess we now need to say it in an amendment, that people
who attend the OSCE, G-8 or similar bodies must have the same immunities and
privileges as those who attend organizations set up within the ambit of a
treaty. Staying with the G-8, I suppose it is timely to have this clarified and
in place.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing
Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight, at the
time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Cumberland--Colchester,
National Defence; the hon. member for
Sackville--Musquodoboit
Valley--Eastern Shore, Airline Safety; and the hon. member for
Kootenay--Boundary--Okanagan,
Transportation.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The question is
on the previous motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion
the yeas have it.
And more than five members having
risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Call in the
members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The recorded
division stands deferred until the end of government orders tomorrow
afternoon.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you
would find consent of the House that we see the clock as 6.30 p.m. and that we
proceed to the adjournment debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Is there unanimous consent to see the clock as 6.30
p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Adjournment Debate]
* * *
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
* * *
[English]
National
Defence
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question I originally raised
on May 30 which was five months ago. At the time the distinguished
parliamentary secretary said he would be more than happy to take my question
under advisement and get back to me at an early time. It is now five months
later and at my initiative we are back to discuss the issue.
It is appropriate that we discuss the issue now
considering the things that are happening and the fact that the Prime Minister
has suggested he will send peacekeepers to Afghanistan to deal with the
aftermath of the military action when it ends. The question was raised today in
the House as to where the additional soldiers would come from, where the money
would come from and which peacekeeping efforts would be reduced to deal with
this.
However it is more important that the government send a
message that it will play a part in establishing a transitional government in
Afghanistan and that it fight hard to ensure the United Nations plays a key
role in Afghanistan after the military action ends. If the United States or any
other country sets up a puppet government in Afghanistan it will be a disaster
the rest of the world will pay for a long time. It must be a United Nations
initiative.
Does the government agree? Will it do everything it can
to ensure Canada plays a key role in establishing a transitional government
through the United Nations that recognizes and represents all facets of the
population in Afghanistan? Can the parliamentary secretary tell members whether
the government is prepared to play a role through the United
Nations?
(1630)
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the question the member asked has
absolutely nothing to do with the question he asked on May 30. For your
information, Mr. Speaker, during question period he asked about the
cancellation and reissuing by DND of the tender for the redeployment of
vehicles and equipment from Eritrea. That is the question he asked. I do not
know what that has to do with Afghanistan.
At this point in time Canada has not been asked by the
United Nations and the United Nations has not made up its mind as to whether it
is going to be involved in peacekeeping, and if peacekeeping is going to be
involved in Afghanistan.
Perhaps the member should come back in six months and
ask the same question again. He may actually get an answer. However, I will
comment.
I appreciate the continuing interest of the member for
Cumberland--Colchester in the military and the way it operates and the economy
of scale that the military operates in. This ensures that the government has an
opportunity to reply to some of the concerns raised by Canadians as to whether
the military is combat capable, whether it is able to take part in the long
term planning that is ahead of us and whether the enhancement of global
deployablity is still of great concern.
I appreciate the member's question. His question came
from the incident with the GTS Katie in which a shipping firm was not
being paid by the agent that had been contracted. It protested and Canadian
equipment, containerized equipment mostly, was held up in high seas and not
allowed to enter port. That created a situation. The Government of Canada,
through the Minister of National Defence, had decided that the use of
commercial carriers to move equipment and personnel, which has been a common
practice among Canada's allies for many years for non-combative services, eases
the pressure on military personnel who would otherwise have to provide these
services. On the subject of sealift in particular some valuable lessons were
learned from the GTS Katie incident. A number of steps have been taken
to strengthen the DND sealift contracting operations and options to meet the
transportation requirements of the Canadian forces.
After consulting with the Department of Justice, legal
counsel, the shipping industry and a number of NATO allies, DND decided to try
an industry best practice approach of chartering its maritime transportation
requirements directly with shipowners. This eliminates contracting
intermediaries and allows for the solicitation of bids directly from shipowners
through a broker.
The redeployment of Canadian forces equipment from
Eritrea this past summer offered an excellent opportunity to charter by this
means. It is a very successful operation and one now that we can be very proud
of. It provides the economy of scale, the efficiency that all of our allies use
and it has proved to be very successful.
(1635)
Mr. Bill Casey:
Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge to the parliamentary
secretary that I did go into a new area which was not part of the original
question. The original question was asked five months ago. I appreciate that
the parliamentary secretary tried to answer that question but he said that we
have not been asked to participate. That goes along with what the Prime
Minister said in the House, that we have not been told what to do.
What I am asking is that the government take a
proactive stand. Do not ask and do not wait for someone to tell us what to do.
Canada is in a perfect position to take advantage of the respect we receive all
around the world and say that we want the United Nations to play a key role in
a transition government in Afghanistan and that Canada wants to play a role in
developing that plan for Afghanistan.
We do not have to wait for anyone else. We do not have
to wait to be asked. We do not have to wait to be told. Let us take some
action. Let us do something. Let us try some leadership.
Mr. John O'Reilly:
Mr. Speaker, as I said, I appreciate that the member
for Cumberland--Colchester gave me an opportunity to talk about something else
besides something he was interested in five months ago which actually has no
bearing now and certainly has changed the way the Canadian forces
operate.
We are not waiting for anyone to ask us. Perhaps the
member should have been in Halifax to watch the ships being deployed. We are
responding to the world economies. I was recently in Ethiopia. We have 1,650
troops in Bosnia. I am sure the member is well aware of that. We are doing our
part on the world scene to make sure that the world is a safer place to live
in. Canada will take part in all of its NATO exercises and will live up to the
1994 white paper. We will also make sure that our commitment to NORAD is
fulfilled. We do our part on the world stage. Our troops are something the
world is very proud of and Canada can be proud of.
* * *
Airline Safety
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, on September 18 I asked the Minister of
Transport quite bluntly if the government would assume full control of
pre-board flight screening inside the Canadian borders.
Right now customs agents receive an entire year of
training before they are put on the job by themselves. Pre-board flight
screeners, these officers who check the luggage and hand baggage before people
board the aircraft, receive 20 hours of training. Even after the terrible
events of September 11, that has still not changed.
The airlines, especially Air Canada, have been asking
the government to assume full cost, full control and full training for
pre-boarding screening officers throughout the country. In fact, many members
of parliament, when they leave the Ottawa airport, see a big sign at the
pre-check screening board which says “Airport security is an airline
responsibility”. That is simply nonsense. It has to stop.
The Government of Canada must assume full cost and full
control of airport pre-screening at airports in Canada, that includes small and
major airports.
I will give the government credit. After September 11,
and long before that, as a former airline employee, I asked the government many
times to ensure that identification checks were done on people prior to the
boarding of a flight. That I must say is now being done.
There is another dangerous aspect of airport screening
that is not being done. Nothing is being done to stop terrorists, who have no
concern for their own lives, from putting something in their suitcase, checking
it in and having it go onboard the aircraft in the underbelly. They then can
sit up top and an hour later in the flight a disaster can strike.That can still
happen today.
I do not mean to frighten airline passengers or people
willing to take flights in the future, but there is no x-ray of baggage or
cargo going onboard airplanes. We have it internationally but not
domestically.
Countries in Europe are doing it now and I encourage
the government to move with as much speed as possible to x-ray all baggage and
cargo that go on aircraft to ensure safety and to give back the confidence that
the travelling public deserves.
We encourage the government on two points. First,
assume full control of security at all airports in the country, including the
cost, the training and employment of these people. The ones who are there now
do a good job, but they simply do not get the income nor the training to do
their job post-September 11.
Second, and I cannot reiterate this enough. it is
imperative that the government assume control of the x-ray of all baggage and
cargo which goes on board an aircraft. If it does that, it will indeed give the
travelling public the confidence it needs.
(1640)
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond to the
question raised by the hon. member on September 18, 2001, on airline
safety.
I would like to begin by providing assurances that the
safety and security of travellers have always been and will continue to be the
prime concern of Transport Canada.
Following the events of September 11, 2001, and in the
days that followed, the situation was constantly being closely monitored and
measures were reviewed to provide for the resumption of air travel.
These measures and the other components of the aviation
safety system, including the requirements that pertain to screening officers,
are continuously being re-examined.
The government has already responded to the airline
industry's concerns by announcing on October 2 its intention to compensate the
airlines affected. This compensation is to cover losses resulting from the
closure of air space in the days that followed the September 11
tragedy.
The government is establishing high standards for
screening activities. It requires screening officers be trained to certain
standards and that they act immediately to correct anything that hinders
screening operations.
Screening officers assigned to preboarding must follow
a rigorous program of training, which includes both theoretical and practical
training, before they are certified. The law requires them to take refresher
courses every two years.
On October 11, the Minister of Transport, in a series
of important announcements on security measures, indicated that he would be
investing $55.7 million in the purchase of sophisticated explosives detection
equipment and high tech electronic equipment. This technological equipment will
be used to screen cabin and checked baggage.
This announcement followed the minister's statement on
September 25 that Transport Canada would be purchasing explosive detection
equipment for priority airports in Canada. The Canadian security program
incorporates all of the standards of the International Civil Aviation
Organization and is one of the best in the world.
For obvious security reasons, information on the
implementation of the new equipment will not be released.
I would like to provide assurances that Transport
Canada takes its responsibility for ensuring the safety and security of
travellers very seriously. Should any component of the system need to be
changed, Transport Canada will react quickly to ensure the necessary changes
are made.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his answers.
However I do not have a definitive answer to whether
the baggage and cargo are going to be x-rayed prior to delivery on board an
aircraft. That is the question all Canadians are asking me to ask the
government. Also he did not answer whether the federal government will assume
full control, full cost, full employment of all pre-board screening officers in
the entire country.
Those are the two questions. A simple yes or no would
suffice.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay:
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that the officers
performing security checks at airports will have the necessary training and
will meet very strict criteria.
I can also add that the department and the government
will ensure that any baggage will be checked as belonging to a passenger on
both domestic and international flights.
* * *
[English]
Transportation
Mr. Jim Gouk
(Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I pointed out that the
Minister of Transport had announced the spending of $79 million on new security
procedures in transport, a vast majority of which was going toward highly
sophisticated state of the art detection screening equipment. I asked the
minister what airports that equipment would be going to. His response was that
it would go to the major airports where the highest volume of traffic
occurred.
In a supplemental question I asked the minister what
good he thought it would do to put the equipment into high density airports
when at dozens of small airports across the country there was not even basic
x-ray equipment for carry on baggage. People going through those airports are
subject to a hand search. I am not disparaging the people who operate those
security checkpoints. They are not given the tools. It is very easy for them to
miss a hidden compartment or something else that basic x-ray equipment would
pick up.
When people board aircraft and fly into a major
airport, such as Vancouver or Calgary in my case, they are deposited on the
secure side, around the back of the sophisticated equipment which the minister
is spending millions of taxpayers' dollars on to no avail.
I asked the minister how he thought it would help to
put in the fancy equipment and then have people fly out of small airports and
simply be routed around. His response as reported in Hansard
was:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should
know that when that is the case those people in transit are required to go
through security at the larger airports. |
That is not true. Virtually every week I fly out of
small airports that do not have x-ray equipment. I know for an absolute fact
that I am deposited on the secure side. At no time ever, not once, have I been
re-routed through enhanced security at the larger airports.
I would like it clarified why the minister gave such an
answer. Was he endeavouring to intentionally mislead members of the House, or
was he simply incompetent in answering a transport question?
(1645)
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first of all, the safety and security of
our transportation system is Transport Canada's number one priority. The
Minister of Transport was very clear and dealt with these subjects amply during
oral question period and in his speeches during debate.
As I mentioned, while it is not a part of the
government's general direction, without a doubt, we are prepared to study all
possible measures to improve airline safety. We have tried to reduce threats to
airline safety, both on the ground and in the air.
Security in Canadian airports and customs operations
continue to be strengthened and we are accelerating the procurement of security
and explosive detection equipment. We are limiting activities in restricted
areas of airports, increasing the police presence in major airports,
heightening passenger screening, and improving measures regarding baggage.
The Security and Emergency Preparedness Directorate of
Transport Canada is responsible for the development and implementation of
programs that contribute to the security of the national transportation system.
To this end, the department is co-operating with all of
the relevant federal departments and organizations in Canada and with its
partners in the United States, including the FAA, to prevent incidents that
threaten the safety of our national transportation system.
We constantly assess our approach and our measures to
provide a high degree of safety to travellers in this field that has been so
tragically shaken. The minister and the government have made a number of
announcements since September 11 on the subject of improvements to our
excellent safety program. He was equally clear in stating that we must not
discuss specific safety measures in public.
The Minister of Transport and the Government of Canada
have announced a broad range of new measures to improve safety of operations in
Canada's airports. These initiatives will provide more than $69 million for new
equipment and related activities in Canadian airports.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk:
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I did not get an
answer during question period which is the reason I asked to come before the
House tonight during adjournment proceedings. I did not get an answer again. It
is very unfortunate the minister could not have sent someone who had some
transport knowledge. Obviously he does not. We would very much like to get an
answer. My question was not answered. It was not even addressed.
The government's priorities have to be questioned these
days. We are in a time of national and international stress. People are
concerned. What has the Liberal government done? We adjourned early on Friday
and we adjourned two hours early today.
Where is the government's priorities and plan? It does
not have any. It cannot answer basic security questions in transport. The
government does not have a plan and it cannot even give a straight honest
answer.
(1650)
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
I have to remind the hon. member that he comes very
close to being unparliamentary.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay:
Mr. Speaker, recently the minister announced funding of
$79 million to improve airport security.
Once again, I can assure the member that we are asking
our employees to ensure that every piece of baggage belongs to a passenger,
whether on domestic or international flights.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have
been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 4.51 p.m.)