37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 028
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 14, 2001
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| UNIVERSITÉ DE MONCTON
|
| Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| JAMES MERRITT HARRISON
|
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
1405
| SHIRLEY BUOTE
|
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| CENTENARIANS
|
| Mr. Mark Eyking |
| VIRTUAL PARLIAMENT
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1410
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| GREECE
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| MINISTER OF FINANCE
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
1415
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
1420
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1425
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1435
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1440
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. David Anderson |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| MINING INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1445
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1450
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| LUMBER
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1455
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Ted White |
1500
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Public Accounts
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Scrutiny of Regulations
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-15. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1510
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Bill C-15
|
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1515
1520
1525
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1530
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1535
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1540
1545
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1550
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1555
| CANADA ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-295. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-296. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| OBSERVANCE OF TWO MINUTES OF SILENCE ON REMEMBRANCE DAY ACT
|
| Bill C-297. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1600
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-298. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| PARLIAMENTARIANS' CODE OF CONDUCT
|
| Bill C-299. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1605
| Division on motion deferred
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Mining Industry
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Child Pornography
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| Canada Post
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| Violence
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| Health Care
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1610
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| Pensions
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Health
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1615
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-13. Second reading
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1620
| CANADA SHIPPING ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-14. Second reading
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1625
1630
1635
1640
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
1645
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1650
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| CANADA SHIPPING ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-14. Second reading
|
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
1655
1700
1705
1710
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Mr. John Bryden |
1715
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1720
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1725
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| AMERICAN NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEM
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Motion
|
1735
1740
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
1745
1750
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1755
1800
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1805
1810
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1815
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1820
1825
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 028
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 14, 2001
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[Translation]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing O
Canada, led by the hon. member for Edmonton North.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
UNIVERSITÉ DE MONCTON
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to congratulate the Université de Moncton, which
this past Monday inaugurated its master of forestry program at
its Edmunston, New Brunswick, campus.
This long-awaited master's program will equip local young people,
as well as students from elsewhere, to work in a field that is
essential for the survival of our planet. Forests are a
resource that disappears if mismanaged, hence the importance of
training in this field.
What is more, this program represents a feather in the cap of
the francophones of New Brunswick and of francophones throughout
Canada.
This young French language university, a mere 38 years old, and
its 15 year old faculty of forestry have every reason to be
proud of this accomplishment, and I congratulate them on it.
To all those who had a hand in it, my congratulations, and to
all the future graduates, my best wishes for success.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, House of Commons committees are already rolling and
I would like to give one person's opinion of what committees are
like:
O give me some pity, I'm on a committee
Which means that from morning to night
We attend, and amend and contend and defend
Without a conclusion in sight.
We confer and concur, we defer and demur
And reiterate all of our thoughts
We revise the agenda with frequent addenda
And consider a load of reports.
We compose and propose, we suppose and oppose
And the points of procedure are fun
But though various notions are brought up as motions
There's terribly little gets done.
We resolve and absolve, but we never dissolve
Since it's out of the question for us
What a shattering pity to end our committee
Where else could we make such a fuss?
* * *
JAMES MERRITT HARRISON
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a great Canadian scientist who
was recently inducted into the Canadian Mining Hall of Fame. The
late Dr. James Merritt Harrison was the former director of the
Geological Survey of Canada.
During his 17 year tenure, this organization enjoyed one of the
most successful periods of its venerable history. Indeed, during
this time many government programs were developed that helped
make Canada a world leader in mineral exploration and resource
development. Later, as a senior officer with Natural Resources
Canada, Dr. Harrison became a respected spokesman on mineral
industry issues.
Dr. Harrison greatly deserves this prestigious honour and he
deserves public recognition for his accomplishments in the mining
industry.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
human security is an organizing principle of Canadian foreign
policy, then it is human insecurity which is the most serious
dimension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict today including the
fear and fact of terrorism and violence, the demonizing of the
other, and the harm to children caught in vortex of conflict.
Each side sees itself as victim and the other as victimizer.
Accordingly what is required now is a parallel set of confidence
building measures by each party for the Israelis to lift the
closure, permit normalization of life and adhere to the
strictures of the Oslo accord and the Sharm El Sheikh agreements;
for the Palestinian authority to cease acts of incitement and
violence, combat the terrorist infrastructure, and similarly
adhere to the Oslo and Sharm El Sheikh agreements.
In a word, if there is one thing that both Israelis and
Palestinians require today, and to which Canada can contribute,
it is the restoration of a sense of human security as a prelude,
if not condition, to a negotiated peace.
* * *
1405
SHIRLEY BUOTE
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I send my
sincere congratulations to one of my constituents, Shirley Buote.
Shirley returned to Prince Edward Island on Monday night after an
excellent performance at the International Special Olympic Winter
Games in Anchorage, Alaska.
On Friday, Shirley put her best foot forward and secured a
bronze medal in the 200 metre snowshoe competition with a time of
1:24:67. This is a sport, I may add, that I share her enjoyment
of. Shirley then joined three other Canadians to win a silver
medal in the 4x100 metre relay event with a time of 1:55:11.
Shirley was the lone Islander competing for Canada at the winter
games and she has made all Islanders proud. I congratulate
Shirley on a job well done.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today thousands of desperate farmers
are demonstrating across Canada. They are praying that the
public will understand that the government's recent aid
announcement fails to provide even short term relief.
Canadian farmers receive a mere 7% of their income in government
subsidies. Europe subsidizes its farmers by 65% and the U.S.
subsidizes 34% of its grain farmers' income. Many farms in
Canada are subsidized only when both husband and wife leave the
farm to provide their own income.
Here are some basic questions facing Canadians. First, do we
want safe food? Second, do we want an agriculture industry?
Third, do we want a dependable supply of food?
Canadians and their government are in danger of losing what we
now enjoy with a safe, dependable and cheap supply of food. We
must address short term solutions before we can deal with any
long term strategy.
* * *
CENTENARIANS
Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure today to congratulate two fine ladies
from Millville, Cape Breton. Sister Mary MacIntosh and Annie
MacAulay are turning 100 years of age this month. As young
girls, they both went to a one room schoolhouse in Millville.
Sister Mary MacIntosh became a Sister of Charity and worked in
various convents and hospitals. She enjoys doing counted cross
stitch and always has one or two crochet projects in progress.
Affectionately known as Sister Henry, she is still an active
member of our community.
Annie MacAulay went on to become a teacher. She married Dan
Allen MacAulay. They raised four children and have 16
grandchildren and 24 great-grandchildren.
She has a beautiful property on the Mill Pond Road overlooking
the Bras D'Or lakes, and as a farmer I am proud to be growing
crops on her land.
Over the last century these two ladies have contributed greatly
to our community. I am proud to rise today to mark this
occasion.
* * *
[Translation]
VIRTUAL PARLIAMENT
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
March 7, I sent a letter to all the members of this House on the
need to develop a virtual parliament. Subsequently, at the
interparliamentary forum of the Americas, which was held here in
Ottawa last week, we passed the following proposal:
Recognizing that co-operation among parliaments is essential and
that globalization brings about issues that require debate and
actions that go beyond national frontiers;
Recognizing that we must participate in an active manner in
those debates and that we must increase exchange and dialogue
among parliament members from other countries, from the
hemisphere and the world;
Recognizing that a new formula, apart from occasional summits
and gatherings, must be developed to increase the productivity
of our work, in order to allow parliament members to exchange on
a more regular basis;
We, parliamentarians from the Americas, will acquire the proper
and available telecommunications instruments that will allow us
to hold virtual assemblies or committees between
parliamentarians from the Americas.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
calls by the reform alliance members for increased income support
for our farmers borders on hypocrisy.
This is the party that wants to wipe out agricultural support
programs. Its policy book, passed at its convention just last
year, says that the Alliance wants to force our farmers to be
“self-reliant”. It states that the Alliance members “support
the phased reduction and elimination of all subsidies, support
programs and trade restrictions”.
This is not a new stand for that party. The policy book passed
at the Reform Party's founding convention said “We advocate the
removal of agricultural subsidies at home and abroad”. Later,
the party told us that “The Reform Party supports a shift from a
government dominated and supported agricultural industry to an
industry shaped by market forces”.
Why would Canadian farmers now consider that party their new
champion?
* * *
1410
AGRICULTURE
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, foot and mouth disease is spreading
like wildfire through Europe. The disease would devastate our
livestock industries if it were imported to Canada.
Travellers returning from Europe have told us that customs
officials have failed to determine if they had visited farms.
Farmers have also reported that there were insufficient security
inspections to ensure that potentially contaminated food was not
being brought into Canada.
On March 2, Linda and Bill Plank landed at Vancouver airport
directly from London and indicated that they had visited United
Kingdom farms. They were not even questioned by customs
officials let alone referred to food inspection officers. This
was in the middle of the crisis in the United Kingdom, yet again
our government was failing to fully protect the Canadian
livestock industry.
It would only take one person transferring the virus on their
shoes or clothing to begin a Canadian infestation. We must
prevent transmission of foot and mouth disease into Canada before
it happens. We must therefore ensure complete security and
inspection for travellers and imports coming from all of Europe.
Canada cannot afford to react after the fact.
* * *
GREECE
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure for me to rise today to welcome, first and
foremost, a good friend, and second, a parliamentarian from
Greece, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs who is visiting
our capital city and Canada.
Never before have the relations between Canada and Greece been
better, both on the cultural side and the economic exchange side.
We welcome the deputy minister to Ottawa, where he can see that
the voices of 30 million people are heard right here. I welcome
the deputy minister. It is good to have him here.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, at noon today I was among many people at the farm
demonstration in Ottawa. There were also thousands of farmers
demonstrating in Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Swift Current, the
Toronto area and right across the country.
They are doing so because farmers are in the biggest crisis they
have seen since the 1930s and many are going bankrupt and being
forced to leave the land. In the prairies alone, between the
fall of 1999 and the fall of 2000, 22,500 farmers left the land.
It is hard to believe that so many have left the land. The
reason is that our federal government has not been supporting our
farmers like governments have in other parts of the world.
In Europe grain farmers get about 56 cents on the dollar from
the European Community. In the United States they get about 38
cents on the dollar. In this country it is only 11 cents on the
dollar.
We need more money from the federal government. Five hundred
million dollars is not enough. It has to be doubled to around $1
billion in the short term, and in the long term we need a long
term farm program based on the costs of production.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF FINANCE
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Finance dared to call the Premier of
Quebec barbaric. In doing so, he insulted all of Quebec.
A barbarian is uncivilized. The dictionary describes a
barbarian as cruel, merciless, and inhuman.
Cruel, merciless and inhuman were the cuts the Minister of
Finance imposed on the health and education systems.
Cruel, merciless and inhuman was the reform of employment
insurance, which excluded the majority of unemployed persons,
especially women and young people, from the benefits of the
system.
Cruel, merciless and inhuman was the attitude of the federal
Minister of Finance toward the Canadian tax system when he
excluded his ships from Canadian taxes while he hacked hospital
budgets to bits.
Who is barbaric? The person who defends the interests of
Quebec, the dignity and pride of Quebecers, as Bernard Landry
has always done, or the person who sits atop his pile of money
spouting insults that spatter Quebecers with disdain, as the
federal Minister of Finance has done?
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Saturday the Ottawa Citizen reported yet another threat to
the commercial fisheries in the Great Lakes. It appears that a
small yet vitally important crustacean is disappearing from the
lakes at an alarming rate. This shrimp-like bottom feeder called
the diporeia is the primary food source for numerous young fish
species. At this point the creature has not been seen in Lake
Erie for over three years and is on a steady decline in the other
four lakes.
Scientists are unclear as to the impact that these waning
numbers will have on populations such as smelt, whitefish, trout
and salmon. However I strongly feel that we must act quickly. As
is the case with sea lamprey scourge, it is suspected that the
root problem of this situation is a biological foreign invader. I
regret that control of a problem is needed because efforts to
prevent the attack were not taken. We need to start tackling
these issues head on or we risk disaster for the entire Ontario
freshwater fishery.
1415
I would encourage the government to strive to resolve these
matters through increased R and D funding, more stringent control
of ballast water exchange and by adding sea lamprey control to
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans a-base funding at the $8
million level requested by the standing committee.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
although the Russian diplomat involved in the recent fatal crash
in Ottawa has been sent home to face criminal charges, there is
still an outstanding obligation by the Russian embassy.
The Russian ambassador himself owes an apology for allowing his
staff members to continue the dangerous practice of driving under
the influence on an ongoing basis.
I call on the Russian ambassador to correct the record about his
knowledge of prior infractions by his staff members and to assure
the Canadian people that Russian diplomats will be disciplined or
sent home if they are involved in behaviour that puts the safety
of Canadians at risk.
The ambassador had several opportunities to take action that may
have prevented the death of Catherine MacLean but he simply
failed to act.
The ambassador owes Canada an explanation, the facts and an
apology.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration said “We need evidence and
warrants before we can arrest and deport someone. We do not rely
on whisper and innuendo”.
We have the evidence now that a warrant for the arrest of
Gaetano Amodeo was sent to the RCMP in January 1999 for the
murder of a police officer but the government waited two years to
act.
I am just curious. Does the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration consider a formal arrest warrant and request for
extradition from the Italian government to be merely whisper and
innuendo?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP does not arrest under Italian
law. It must arrest under Canadian law, and that is exactly what
happened here.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are starting to wonder if the RCMP
arrest under any law.
[Translation]
Yesterday in the House the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration made the following statement:
Now we have evidence. Why? Because the RCMP was in possession
of a warrant for the arrest of Gaetano Amodeo as far back as
January 1999.
My question is simple and specific. Why did the government wait
two years before taking action?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, the RCMP does
not arrest anybody under a foreign warrant. It must be under a
Canadian warrant.
I do not get involved in investigations, but I get my facts from
the commissioner of the RCMP. I am advised that the RCMP did not
positively locate or identify this individual until December. He
was then arrested and jailed and is awaiting deportation
hearings.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I do not think anything is
investigated by that particular minister. There were pictures of
this gentleman with people in the underworld in Montreal.
Since he is trying to evade the question let us switch it. The
warrant for Mr. Amodeo came through in January 1999. The
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration claims she was unaware of
the warrant until January 2001, two years later.
My question for the solicitor general is simply this. Did his
department inform the Department of Citizenship and Immigration
about this particular warrant? Simply yes or no.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has it wrong. The fact
of the matter is that the RCMP dealt with the Italian officials
for over two years, since 1999. There were some problems with
pictures and other things as to whether or not it was the proper
identification.
In December of last year the RCMP did locate and properly
identify the individual. Appropriate action was then taken. The
individual was arrested. He is now in jail awaiting deportation
hearings.
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, during question period yesterday the solicitor general
praised the effectiveness of the Canadian police information
centre database.
My question to the solicitor general is very simple. When did
the RCMP add the name Gaetano Amodeo to this database?
1420
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague ought to get a few
things straight. I do not run CPIC. I do not run the internal
operations of the RCMP. I do not put stuff on CPIC. The only
people who can answer that are the RCMP.
[Translation]
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
it is the same thing here all the time. The name of Gaetano
Amodeo has appeared on two applications for permanent residence
status. The first dates from June 1999 and the second from
September 2000.
Could the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell us
exactly when her department checked the name of Gaetano Amodeo
with the Canadian Police Information Centre?
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, it is important for people to know
that this individual is not an immigrant. There was an original
permanent resident application made. His name was removed from
that application by legal documentation. When he was
subsequently sponsored his application did not go forward. He is
not a permanent resident of Canada.
As soon as we sufficient information was given to us by the RCMP
he was arrested. He is in custody and is awaiting a deportation
hearing.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, still
on the Amodeo affair, yesterday the Minister of Justice
confirmed that an extradition request had been made in September
1999.
She told the House, and I quote: “The confidentiality imposed upon that
communication prevents me
from making the contents of those communications known
publicly”.
That is not what we are asking for. We do not want to know
what was in the request. What we want to know is whether she
informed the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Since discussions in cabinet and between ministers are not a
matter of public record, we can assume that the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration knew in September 1999 that a
request for extradition had been made.
Yes or no. Did the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration know
in September 1999 that a request for Mr. Amodeo's extradition
had been made?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for the hon.
member that CIC was informed by appropriate federal agencies when
Mr. Amodeo was positively identified and located and when there
was adequate evidence to commence deportation proceedings.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
rather strange. When we put a question to the Minister of
Justice, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration rises, and
when the question is for her the Minister of Justice rises.
Something is not right.
Could the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell me whether
or not in September 1999 she was advised by the Minister of
Justice that Italy had made a request for Mr. Amodeo's
extradition?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought I was clear in my
previous response but let me repeat it for the hon. member.
CIC was informed by appropriate federal agencies when Mr. Amodeo
was positively identified and located by the RCMP and when there
was adequate evidence to commence deportation proceedings against
him.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, no
wonder they can lose all track of Mr. Amodeo when they cannot
even tell whom a question is for.
I am asking the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when she
learned that there was an extradition request. Did the Minister
of Justice in fact inform her in September 1999 that there had
been a request for Mr. Amodeo's extradition? My question is not
for the Minister of Justice but for the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. It is impossible to hear the
minister, and she has the floor.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me simply reiterate that
CIC was informed when the RCMP positively identified and located
Mr. Amodeo. At that point the decision was made to commence
deportation proceedings against Mr. Amodeo.
1425
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do
not know whether there has been a cabinet shuffle, but my
question was for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
I ask her again whether, in September 1999, her colleague, the
Minister of Justice, informed her, as it was her responsibility
and duty to do, that Italy had requested Mr. Amodeo's
extradition, when this individual and his wife had already begun
the procedures to immigrate to Canada? Did she know? Yes or no.
This question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, not the Minister of Justice. We know that she
knows nothing.
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration I have responsibility for deportation. As soon as
the RCMP had sufficient evidence so that we knew the whereabouts
and identity of this individual, my department was notified, the
individual was arrested, detained and deportation proceedings
began.
* * *
[Translation]
AGRICULTURE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadian
farmers are suffering. They have faced cut after cut. They are
facing strong, subsidized competition from the Europeans and the
Americans and even the Japanese, and then there is the cost of
gasoline.
Unfeeling, the government has done nothing. I hope the Prime
Minister has seen the farmers' despair today. Will the Prime
Minister finally wake up and stop ignoring the agriculture
crisis?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food explained very clearly
to the House yesterday all of the measures the government has
already taken in this matter.
A few days ago, we put an additional program in place worth $500
million, which will lead to an additional contribution of 40%
from the provinces. Furthermore, the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food and Agri-Food have made available to the farmers
interest free lines of credit of up to a maximum of $700
million.
I think these are very significant initiatives, since we have
been aware of this problem for a long time.
I note that the opposition has not asked a question on this for
weeks. It was the Liberal caucus on this side of the House that
raised the problem.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
good thing we have a Hansard record in the House.
The farmers of Canada are paying a big enough price for the
government's neglect. It is the last straw to have the Prime
Minister steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that we have a crisis,
let alone allocate the appropriate resources and initiate the
measures necessary to resolve the crisis. Behind the tens of
thousands of farmers being driven off the land are the broken
lives and the shattered dreams of real live people.
Who does the Prime Minister think he is helping by ignoring the
crisis? Does he think the farmers of Canada—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there will be $2.6 billion available this year, plus the
$700 million that will be loaned to the farmers interest free. It
is a big improvement over anything that was on the table some
years ago. We recognize that.
I want to repeat that for five weeks there were no questions
from the other side. It was the members on this side of the
House of Commons who had to finally put it in front of the
public.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
The government has announced $750 million in new funds for the
Canadian Foundation for Innovation, nearly $50 million of new
subsidies for the gun registry and a farm aid program that is so
inadequate it is driving thousands of Canadian farmers into
bankruptcy. No Prime Minister in 50 years has treated
agriculture with more contempt or less priority than the Prime
Minister.
Will the Prime Minister provide at least another $400 million
now to stop the Canadian farm crisis?
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have been in the House of Commons for five weeks and
the leader of the fifth party never asked a single question on
this problem, so we know how serious he is.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
because that is the kind of answer we get. I understand that the
Prime Minister told his caucus this morning that the polls do not
show a crisis in agriculture.
How callous and how typical for the Prime Minister to use
polling data from urban Canada to justify throwing farmers into
bankruptcy. This is not about polls. It is about
responsibility. Will the Prime Minister tell the House just why
he gives such a low priority to the survival of Canadian farm
families?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for five weeks the leader of the Conservative Party did
not raise one question on that. It was the caucus of the Liberal
Party that went and talked to the farmers, discussed that with
them and came back to us. We proposed a package of $500 million
plus $700 million interest free loans so they could start the
next season.
The problem was put on the table by this side of the House while
the leader of the fifth party was throwing manure.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair appeals for a
little order. It is very difficult to hear the questions and
answers today and I do not know why. I know the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford will assist the Chair in every respect.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
I can end some of the happiness over there, Mr. Speaker. The
solicitor general just said that the RCMP does not arrest under a
foreign warrant but a Canadian warrant.
If there were pictures taken of Amodeo meeting with a Montreal
mob boss in 1999, and he was considered armed and dangerous, and
he was wanted in Italy and Germany, and he was in Canada, then
why would a Canadian arrest warrant not be issued?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I tell my hon. colleague that I do
not run the internal operations of the RCMP, but I get my facts
from the commissioner of the RCMP. The hon. member's statement
is just simply wrong.
There were pictures taken. There were pictures sent back and
forth, and some of them were wrong. I had been advised that the
RCMP located and identified this individual in December of last
year. Following that, he was arrested, jailed and is now
awaiting deportation hearings.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that he says there will be
deportation hearings because the immigration minister just said
Amodeo is not an immigrant. If he is not an immigrant, why is
there a deportation hearing? Maybe she could clarify that.
Under what pretence was he in Canada, meeting in Canada, meeting
with a mob boss and considered armed and dangerous? Pictures
were taken. Is he here on a visitor's visa? Let us hear the
immigration minister once again convince us that he should not
have been arrested in—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to be as helpful in explaining
this to the member as I can. If someone is in Canada without
legal status, the individual can be deported.
Once we had evidence that was provided by the RCMP to my
department at the end of January, this individual was arrested by
immigration officials and deportation procedures began. I was
personally informed about this around the end of February. I
think the facts speak for themselves.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tells us that the
deportation process comes under her department and that she
commenced the deportation proceedings toward the end of the year
2000, as soon as there was sufficient evidence. This is all fine
and well, but it is not the issue.
1435
The issue is whether in September 1999, when a request for
extradition was made by Italy, the Minister of Justice informed
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration accordingly at that
time. This is all I want to know.
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for members to
understand the procedure. As soon as the RCMP investigation
provided evidence as to the identification and the whereabouts of
this individual, my department was informed so that deportation
proceedings could begin.
He was arrested. He is in detention and is presently awaiting a
deportation hearing. He is not a permanent resident.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is still not answering the question.
Could the Minister of Justice tell us if, in September 1999, she
informed her colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, not publicly but during cabinet meetings or
confidential discussions with her, that a request for
extradition had been made by Italy regarding a person who was in
Canada or who wanted to enter Canada?
Did the minister inform her colleague, back in September 1999,
that a request for extradition had been made? This is what I
want to know. I am not asking when the deportation proceedings
began. I am asking whether the minister informed her colleague
back in September 1999. It is as simple as that. Did she or did
she not?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have indicated, and my hon.
colleague has also tried to indicate, that the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration was informed by appropriate federal
authorities when Mr. Amodeo was positively identified and located
by the RCMP, and when there was sufficient evidence to commence
deportation proceedings.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was at the protest today and I will
tell members what farmers are saying right from Saskatoon to
Ottawa. They are saying that this minister had better resign
because he is not dealing with the agriculture crisis in the
country.
Let us talk about those statistics from when the government
first heard about the crisis. In 1998 we put it forward in the
safety net committee and the agriculture minister stood in the
House and said that NISA and crop insurance were plenty enough
for farmers, and that was all they needed.
When will the other $400 million be given to farmers because the
crisis is still on the go?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can say what he likes but
it was not too long ago that they changed their minds. In the
last term they said very clearly in their platform that they
would remove subsidies. Finally they have seen the light. I am
sure Canadian farmers are pleased.
When they said there should be no support for farmers, we
increased the support from $600 million a year to $1.1 billion a
year, and two weeks ago to $1.6 billion a year.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the proof is in the pudding. In 1993
this government came to power. In 1995 it drove farm support
down to around $650 million when it should have been up to about
$1.5 billion.
The gap between Canada and the United States is big and the
government has not narrowed it. Farmers are asking for another
$400 million. Will you commit today to get that $400 million or
will you quit?
The Speaker: The hon. member from Selkirk—Interlake is
an experienced member and I know he wants to address his remarks
to the Chair, not to anyone else.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the record of the government speaks for
itself in increasing the support for agriculture to the highest
level since 1995.
With the support from the provinces there is $2.66 billion for
safety net support this year, as well as up to $700 million in
interest free loans to assist farmers this year.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, last year Europe and the United States each provided
more than $300 per capita in assistance to their farmers.
At the same time Quebec and Canadian farmers received barely
half that, $163 per capita. The measures announced by the
minister are therefore totally inadequate.
1440
The farmers here today are desperate because they are unable to
compete with Europe or the United States. Does the government
understand their need for assistance and will it commit to
providing them with the $400 million they need?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is continually working to
find support and strength for the agriculture and agri-food
industry in Canada.
I remind the House once again that in the last two weeks we have
provided an additional $500 million. With the provincial support
it takes that to $830 million more than there was two weeks ago.
We increased the interest free loans by two and a half, up to
$50,000 per farmer interest free to assist them this spring.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, for the past two years, farmers have had to pay
$816 million more in fuel costs.
The vote seeking measure taken by the Minister of Finance with
his $125 or $250 cheques has completely missed the mark.
What then is the minister waiting for before he corrects his
mistake and helps those who are really suffering from the
increased fuel prices, that is farmers, taxi drivers and
self-employed truckers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that
is why we have substantially reduced taxes for all Canadians,
why we have inaugurated a very extensive farm assistance
program, and why we will continue along the same lines.
[English]
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there are several things missing from
the government's self-righteous and feeble response to the
agriculture crisis.
It is missing any coherent, long term farm policy. It is
missing a meaningful commitment to agriculture. It is missing the
feeling of desperation that families feel as their livelihoods go
down the drain. It is missing $400 million. When will the
government come up with the additional money needed to stabilize
this Canadian farm income crisis?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is really refreshing that Alliance
Party members have finally as the sixth or seventh question today
raised agriculture. They have seen the light. I appreciate
their support and so do farmers.
We were there with the financial support back when they said
there should not be any and back when they said they did not even
support supply management. Farmers will be encouraged with that,
but I remind them that the government has been there, will be
there and will be there in the future.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, according to the main estimates for the 2001-02 fiscal
year, the department of agriculture's budget has been reduced by
$470 million from last year. Two days after these numbers were
released, the minister of agriculture announced $500 million in
conditional disaster relief.
Unless we use the Liberal new math, the additional money was
only $30 million. When I count on my fingers and toes what I get
is that it is only 6% of the money the minister claims to be
giving. Does the minister of agriculture think that Canadian
farmers cannot add?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I offer again a briefing. The President
of the Treasury Board has offered a briefing for hon. members on
the other side.
What showed up in the supplementary estimates was that the
support for the AIDA program for one year is there. The
liability was created for CFIP for the next year, and it was
booked in the same year. That shows there are two items booked
in one year and not in the next year. There is no change as far
as the support at that time in agriculture. Since then we have
added $500 million more.
* * *
[Translation]
MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Canada's mining industry is going through some very difficult
times, especially in my riding, with the closing of gold mines
in various regions of the country. We must intervene in order
to ensure the future and the security of thousands of jobs in
this sector. Between 1948 and 1976 the government adopted a
program of emergency assistance to provide support to the
industry during such periods of difficulty.
What will the Minister of Finance do to help Canadian
miners keep their jobs and ensure a prosperous future for our
mining industry?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
thanks to the tireless efforts of the hon. member and of the
other members from northern Ontario, Quebec and the Territories,
we have introduced a new flow through share credit.
1445
I can now tell the House that following the meeting of the
association in Toronto this weekend this is working very
well, once again thanks to the efforts of these members.
I am prepared to announce today that my department has
undertaken broad consultations on fiscal matters in order to
help the industry.
I would like to thank all members for their ongoing and intense
interest.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister misleads the House when he says the opposition has not—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Obviously it is provoking disorder. I know
the hon. member for Palliser will want to be more careful in his
choice of words, especially in a preamble.
Mr. Dick Proctor: He says the opposition has not raised
agriculture as an issue. What is factual is that when we do ask
a question of the Prime Minister on this topic he invariably
deflects it to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. It is
noteworthy as well that on the emergency debate he did not even
participate.
The fact of the matter is that in 1993 when the government took
office there was more than $2 billion more than currently for
agricultural assistance. When will he put that money back into
agriculture when it is needed most?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not have to remind the House that
when the Liberals formed the government we were losing $42
billion a year because of the fiscal management of the party on
the hon. member's left.
We had to make some changes to everything that everybody did.
Canadians contributed to that change. We are now in a completely
different fiscal situation. We have shown support to agriculture
as we have increased support to agriculture considerably since
that time.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the reality of the farm crisis in
the country is the fact that the Liberal Party just stole the
Alliance's agricultural policy and now we have a crisis in the
country.
More specific, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
announced a measly package for the P.E.I. potato farmers
yesterday. He is five months late and $50 million short. If
that is all the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food can do for
P.E.I. potato farmers, why does he not take the bullet for his
party and resign today?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, $14.1 million is not an insignificant
amount of money. Along with that, those producers also have the
opportunity to use the Canadian farm income program. They have
the net income stabilization program. They have a portion of the
money that we announced two weeks ago and they have the $14.1
million of new money that we announced yesterday.
I remind the House that agriculture is a shared jurisdiction and
that there is a responsibility for the province of Prince Edward
Island as well.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration. Documents in the possession of the minister's
department confirm that the Amodeo family application for
permanent residence status was filed with her department in June
1999. Six months earlier the Italians had requested Canadian
assistance.
Is the minister telling the House that she was totally unaware
of a man wanted in connection with three murders. He was listed
on Interpol and CPIC for a year and a half, and she did nothing.
When did she know and when did her department know?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question. The
department was notified at the end of January by the RCMP that it
had sufficient information on the individual's identity and
whereabouts.
It asked us to proceed to arrest, which we did. We detained
him. He is presently in custody and awaiting a deportation
hearing.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the Amodeo family had applied for permanent status a
year and a half earlier. The minister told the House that her
department needed evidence and warrants before it could arrest
and deport someone.
It is clear the Italian authorities contacted the RCMP, the
Department of Justice and Interpol requiring warrants,
extradition, information about the whereabouts of Gaetano Amodeo.
This information is available to her department.
Is the minister suggesting that all these efforts by the
Italians, the Canadian justice authorities and the RCMP were
insufficient to get her department to act for a year and a half?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's question is
incorrect. My department received last year and annually over
the last few years some 300,000 applications.
At one point in time there was an application made by this
family. His name was removed from the application by a legal
document.
When the spouse attempted to sponsor him, he did not become a
permanent resident of Canada. He is not a permanent resident.
He is in jail awaiting a deportation hearing.
1450
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, there are some inconsistencies going on here. The
minister just replied to this question by saying that her
department was informed at the end of January. A couple of
questions ago she announced that she was personally informed
about the end of February.
There are all kinds of dates and times going on here. The
Minister of Justice said that when it was appropriate and
everything was positively identified the department of
immigration was notified. The problem is that since April 1999
when the RCMP took photos of Mr. Amodeo the Italian authorities
confirmed that. It seems that everyone knew that but her.
Why did she allow this person to stay in Canada and risk—
The Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I completely reject the premise of the
member's question. I will once again repeat for her that my
department was notified by the RCMP that it had sufficient
evidence so that we could proceed with deportation at the end of
January.
I was personally informed and briefed mid-February. At that
time the individual had been arrested. He is in jail and he is
awaiting a deportation hearing.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, now it has gone from the end of January, to the end
of February, to the middle of February. The problem is that
Amodeo and his wife ran a business in Canada. They were very
visible in Montreal since 1996. They owned a home. If Amodeo
was hiding out it was in plain sight, yet the minister comes up
with all kinds of fictional dates. We need to get to the bottom
of it.
When did her department know—the Minister of Justice or the
Solicitor General of Canada—that they were harbouring a criminal
in Canada and why did they wait two full years until he was
arrested?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been very forthcoming. I will
repeat again for the House that at the end of January my
department received information and evidence from the RCMP
sufficient that it went out and arrested the individual. He is
in jail and awaiting a deportation hearing.
I was personally briefed about three weeks later, the middle to
the end of February. At that time he was in custody, awaiting a
deportation hearing. Those are the facts.
* * *
[Translation]
LUMBER
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after the
contradictory statements made in recent weeks by the Minister
for International Trade, who suggested that Canada's position on
the lumber issue might change, we are now learning that the
Prime Minister met with the U.S. vice-president to discuss the
lumber issue and a possible North American energy pact.
Could the Prime Minister guarantee that he never attempted to link
the energy pact to the lumber issue in his discussions with the
Americans?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
received a call from the U.S. vice-president and we discussed
energy issues. I took that opportunity to raise the lumber
issue.
I told the vice-president that we had a free trade agreement with
them and that we wanted them to buy Canada's lumber because we
can sell it at competitive prices since Canadian producers are
very efficient. A free trade agreement should not apply to
certain areas only. It must apply to all sectors, including
energy and lumber.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, more
specifically, can the Prime Minister assure us that, since the
United States are wrong on the lumber issue, the Canadian
position remains and will remain a return to free trade in that
area, as provided under NAFTA, and that no other issue should be
tied to the lumber issue?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have a free trade agreement and we want the Americans to comply
with it as regards lumber.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health. Quality care at the end of life is a frequently
overlooked element of Canada's health care system. The Senate
report on the subject points out that Canadians are still dying
in needless pain and without adequate palliative care.
Could the parliamentary secretary inform the House what action
the government is taking to ensure that dying Canadians have
access to adequate palliative care?
1455
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House
that earlier today the Prime Minister announced that the hon.
Sharon Carstairs will take on special responsibility for
palliative care. On behalf of the Minister of Health I welcome
this appointment.
[Translation]
As we know, Senator Carstairs will be in a position to support
the federal government's commitment to develop palliative care
by working with the provinces, territories and non governmental
organizations to provide palliative care that meets the needs of
caregivers, families and patients.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in a letter to the premier of British
Columbia today Senator Pat Carney has asked that Premier Dosanjh
reintroduce legislation to elect senators.
In an historic declaration somewhat similar to that of Canadian
Alliance Senator Gerry St. Germain, she has also offered to
resign her Senate seat if the Prime Minister agrees to appoint
the successful winner of a Senate election in British Columbia.
When will the Prime Minister agree to fill any further Senate
vacancies with senators who have been duly elected by citizens in
the provinces they will represent?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, some years ago there was an agreement called the
Charlottetown accord that clearly provided for elected senators.
Who fought against this accord? It was the Reform Party at the
time and the Alliance members. They cannot have it both ways.
They cannot be against that in one week and for it the week
after. We respect the constitution. We made an offer to have
elected senators and the Alliance rejected that some years ago.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Alliance has never rejected
Senate reform. We have surveys which show that an overwhelming
majority of citizens in British Columbia want to elect their
senators. As a matter of fact we see numbers as high as 84% in
favour of electing senators in B.C.
Now Senator Pat Carney has offered to vacate her seat if the
Prime Minister agrees to appoint a senator elected by British
Columbians. Why will the Prime Minister not agree to take the
opportunity to establish a true legacy, a legacy to democracy and
respect for democracy, by honouring the will of British
Columbians and appointing an elected senator?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I remember very well how hard members of the Reform
Party of the day campaigned against the package called the
Charlottetown accord. Senate reform was contained in that
package and they campaigned against it.
We have a constitution that provides for a Senate. The elected
members of parliament on this side of the House can represent the
people very well. The house of second thought has been here
since 1867 and we cannot change it because the Alliance Party
opposed—
The Speaker: The hon. member for North Vancouver.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in October 1993 when the Liberal government took power
the Canadian dollar was worth 76.75 cents. Now, eight years
later, it has gone down by 11 cents. That is a 14% drop in value
in just eight years of Liberal mismanagement.
What is the finance minister's target for the Canadian dollar
one year from now and three years from now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that finance ministers
do not answer that kind of question.
He also knows full well that in 1993 the unemployment rate was
11.5%. Today it is 6.9%. In 1993 there were two million fewer
jobs than there are today. In 1993 the disposable income of
Canadians was on the decline. Today it is on the rise. In 1993
our productivity was on the decline. Today it is on the rise.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious that the finance minister does not care
about the value of the dollar. He does not care if it drops to
50 cents U.S.
For ministers who have their assets offshore this may not be a
problem, but for the seniors in our country who have to travel to
the United States, for importers and for other Canadians who
travel, this erosion of their wealth is very important.
How could the minister justify this lack of concern about the
plunge in our currency?
1500
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us look at the fundamentals of the Canadian economy.
As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, the fact is
that Canada has had the strongest job growth of any G-7 country
over the last four years.
The fact is that Canada is expected to have the highest growth
of any G-7 country this year.
The fact is that over the course of the last decade we have
become one of the major high tech economies in the world.
The fact is that because of the changes brought in by this
government, we will ride through the U.S. downturn better than
any other G-7 country.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on Monday, the National Post reported that the Minister of
Industry was preparing to announce federal financial support for
the shipbuilding industry.
Are we to understand that the minister managed to overcome the
opposition of some of his colleagues regarding the need for a
shipbuilding policy, as the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for
several years?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the report of the committee, which is looking into the
question of how to modernize and make more efficient and
competitive shipbuilding in Canada, is not yet filed.
However, I assure the member that every member on this side of
the House is interested in seeing shipbuilding succeed in Canada,
seeing shipbuilding workers put back to work and seeing Canada
maintain its great shipbuilding tradition.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of
hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Grigoris
Niotis, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic
Republic of Greece.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[Translation]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to table in the House,
in both official languages, the report of the Canadian group of
Interparliamentary Union which represented Canada at the 104th
interparliamentary conference, held at Jakarta, Indonesia, from
October 12 to October 21, 2000.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection
of votable items. In accordance with Standing Order 92, this
report is deemed adopted on presentation.
I also have the honour to present the seventh report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of some committees. If the House gives its consent, I
intend to move concurrence in the seventh report later this day.
[Translation]
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
regarding reports presented to the House in the course of the
second session of the 36th parliament.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the
committee requests that the government table a comprehensive
response to the following reports:
[English]
The 11th report, Canada infrastructure works program, phase 2
and follow up phase 1 audit; the 12th report, sole source
contracting for professional services using advanced contract
award notices; the 14th report, Indian and Northern Affairs
Canada, elementary and secondary education; the 15th report,
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and Department of Finance,
handling tax credits, claims for scientific research and
development; and the 16th report, Citizenship and Immigration
Canada, the economic component of the Canadian immigration
program.
SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the
Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.
* * *
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2001
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-15, an
act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1510
PRIVILEGE
BILL C-15
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in regard to the
Department of Justice briefing the media on a bill intended for
the House before and at the exclusion of members of parliament
and their staff.
My question of privilege will argue that the Minister of Justice
and her department are in contempt of parliament since they have
brought the authority and dignity of the House into question. The
government and her department made a mockery of the parliamentary
system and members of parliament.
Erskine May describes contempt as:
—any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of
Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which
obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the
discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or
indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt
even though there is no precedent of the offence.
I want to tell the House what has happened. The Liberal
government and the Minister of Justice gave a briefing on an
omnibus bill today at 11.45 am. It is the bill that the Minister
of Justice just introduced to the House. I am bringing this
motion at the quickest and most appropriate time.
I received a copy of the bill when I came into question period
today. It is a bill that is 78 pages long. The Liberal
government gave a briefing and denied members of parliament and
their staff access to the briefing. The only ones allowed into
the briefing session were members of the media.
This is not simply a small bill. It contains 78 pages. I had an
opportunity to quickly glance through it when I came into the
House. I could not even tell members of the media who were
calling my office what my reaction was to the bill.
The issue is not the embarrassment it has caused to me or the
members of the opposition, it is the embarrassment it has caused
the House. It is an embarrassment for the people of Canada who
voted to send members to the House of Commons so they could be
consulted and have an input. We have been denied even a most
basic briefing.
According to the minister it is not the opposition she has to
convince, it is the media. She gives the media the appropriate
spin and we are left in the dark. We have been embarrassed and
the House has been embarrassed. I am angered and disgusted by
this process.
I am a novice in the House of parliament but I have also served
in legislatures. I was also a crown counsel for the Manitoba
government for years. I advised governments on matters. I
advised the premier of Manitoba in 1990 on the Meech Lake accord.
I am not a novice when it comes to dealing with government
matters and government issues and the basic respect that each
member here deserves.
We were shut out of a briefing and treated like beggars at the
door waiting for leftovers. We did not even get a news release.
I do not know if members of the press got a news release. I
received 78 pages of a bill that is not just on one matter.
One of the Liberal members across the way just asked me if I
could read. Let me say what the bill includes because it is
important to all members of the House. It says “secret until
introduced in parliament”. That secrecy seems to only apply to
the people here.
We are the ones who are being shrouded from the truth. The
secret is being kept from us. The media were briefed and had
full access to the bill.
1515
Some may ask whether I can read. Being a lawyer and having
served government I should be able to easily and quickly read 78
pages. With all due respect, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker,
members of the House and the people of Canada what the bill
includes.
“This enactment amends the Criminal Code”. This is the
summary of what is printed in the bill so I assume it is the
truth. I do not know if it is the truth because I have not had a
chance to read it. However, let us assume it is the truth based
on what the minister has put in the bill and what she has shared
with the media but not with members of the House because it is a
big secret from us.
I will begin again. The summary states:
The enactment amends the Criminal Code by
(a) adding offences and other measures that provide additional
protection to children from sexual exploitation, including sexual
exploitation involving the use of the Internet;
This is a huge issue. However, before I attended the House,
members of the press were asking me what I had to say about the
issue. I had nothing to say because it was a secret. It was
kept secret from everybody in the House. All of Canada knows,
the moment it is introduced the Liberal's spin on the document is
already out on the airwaves through the media. This is
disgusting. It is an absolute subordination of the powers of
each member, as well as your powers, Mr. Speaker, and those of
the House.
It does not end there. The minister will say that we have been
talking about this for a long time and that it was high time the
legislation was introduced. Absolutely, it is high time that it
is introduced, but that is one issue. The next issue is
increasing the maximum penalty for criminal harassment. If that
is in fact what it says, I applaud that. The Manitoba
government, when I was a member, worked very hard to convince the
Liberal government to take steps in that respect.
Now we find out about it in a secret document that we cannot
release until it is introduced in parliament. Who knew about it
before I did, before you did, Mr. Speaker, and before every
member of the House? It was the media, the new opposition. The
government does not care about the elected voices of people. It
has insulted every single member in the House, including
government members on the opposite side. We have all been
insulted by this piece of trickery.
I will continue on with what the bill contains. It says:
Yes, we did ask for this but can we not discuss it beforehand?
Could we at least get a briefing two hours before? Could we have
the decency and the courtesy that was extended to members of the
media but not to us?
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has a point
but I think going through every clause of the bill and telling us
that the message is the same is perhaps unnecessary.
The member has a point and he has made his point. If he has
more to contribute on the question of privilege, I would like to
hear him, but I would rather not hear about the contents of the
bill, which, with great respect—and I think the hon. member
would agree with me on this point—are irrelevant to whether or
not the privileges of the House have been breached.
If I understood the member correctly, his point was whether the
bill was released before its introduction in the House. If he
would stick to that point, I think it would be more helpful to
the Chair.
Mr. Vic Toews: I appreciate the direction, Mr. Speaker,
but I thought it was important not to quote the clauses of the
bill but to give a brief summary of the bill.
I was not quoting clause by clause. I was trying to impress upon
you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a small bill, that this is not
a housekeeping bill, that this is a substantive bill to which we,
as members of parliament, were denied access. We did not even
have two hours. We were not shown the courtesy that was given to
the media.
1520
However, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your direction and I will
move on.
In the last parliament, Speaker Parent issued a warning to this
very same government for a similar offence. The Minister of
Justice was a member of the government and, despite the clear
admonition from the Speaker, the same trick is being played again
on members of the House. On November 6, 1997, the Speaker said:
The Chair acknowledges that this matter is a matter of potential
importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a
role which should not be trivialized. It is from this perspective
that the actions of the Department are of some concern. The
dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often
enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and
practices. I trust that today's decision at this early stage of
the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his
officials and that the department and agencies will be guided by
it.
Despite the warning, the government went on to announce to the
people of China that a Canada-China interparliamentary group had
been created. There was no such group created at the time. The
government briefed a foreign country before it briefed its own
members.
The naming of the head of the Canadian millennium scholarship
foundation before there was legislation setting up the foundation
is another example. There were many other cases in the last
parliament.
If the House is to function with authority and dignity then it
must be respected, especially by the executive. Every elected
member is not the servant of the executive. The executive is the
servant of each and every elected member. When a member of the
executive thwarts the parliamentary process they deny the rights
and privileges of each member and destroy the authority of the
House. If the House is to function with authority and dignity
then it must be respected, especially by the executive. They are
responsible to parliament, not to the media.
On page 63 of Erskine May it states that ministers have a duty
to parliament to account, that ministers should be as open as
possible with parliament. Refusing to provide information and
refusing to allow us to participate in the briefing when members
of the media are present is not in the public interest. The
government has been warned enough. It is time the House took
action and protected itself from this happening again.
Mr. Speaker, when you were elected these were the issues that
were being discussed. Members from both sides of the House voted
for you. There was a real recognition that the executive needed
to understand that each and every backbencher and opposition
member deserved respect. Mr. Speaker, you were entrusted with
our belief that you would carry out that obligation and restore
the dignity that the House deserves.
1525
The executive has not only slapped us in the face, but it has
slapped you, Mr. Speaker, and the people of Canada in the face. I
know that other members wish to speak on the matter.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule the matter to be a prima
facie question of privilege, at which time I would be prepared to
move the appropriate motion.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, exaggerating points seldom make
the argument any better. What we have before us is, in large
measure, two bills of the last session which have been made
omnibus and tabled in the House.
The hon. member went into a long diatribe that I listened to
patiently even though there was plenty of reason to be impatient
given the nonsense that we were hearing. I wish the hon. member
would take the time to listen to what I have to say, but
obviously he does not intend to do so at this point.
The bill as presented today in the House is almost the same as
two bills from the previous parliament. Reciting the titles of
every clause will not change anything.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The House is entitled to
hear the arguments on all sides. I realize there is disagreement
on the issue but the Chair would like to hear the different
points of view.
[Translation]
It is important for all points of view to be heard on such a
matter, and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
has the floor.
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria: I think we heard the deputy House
leader of the party across saying that the opposition has the
right to speak but that the other side of the House has less
rights. I think we just heard the official position of that
particular party in that regard.
Let us correct the inaccuracies made in the House earlier.
First, as far as I know and the Minister of Justice knows at this
point, the media did not receive a copy of the bill prior to
introduction. The only people who received a copy of the bill
before the introduction were opposition critics. They received a
copy an hour and fifteen minutes ahead of time for courtesy
reasons. The bill, as I said, was not released to anyone.
The Chair will know that embargo briefings are not something
that were recently invented. Embargo briefings, without
documents, have been held in the past on a number of issues. It
is true that an embargo briefing was provided to the media
earlier today. The information given to me was that no release
of any document or any bill was given to anyone else. Any
briefing given to the media was under embargo. No documents were
given.
As I said previously, the opposition critics were provided a
copy of the bill one hour and fifteen minutes ahead of the
introduction. Even though the rules of the House, and the Speaker
knows them far better than I, do not require that such is done
but it was done any way.
I do not believe there was any attempt to breach anything. If
anyone has breached the embargo, I am willing to look into that.
If that means that in the future when people do breach embargoes
that it should be recognized in the way things are done around
here, then we would be willing to look at that as well.
However, that is not the same as to say that the Minister of
Justice has committed an act of contempt or any other such issue
against the House, nor does it mean that the hon. member across
has a prima facie case of privilege against the House. That is a
different proposition altogether.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be able to speak on this matter, since this is not
the first time the same thing has happened in the Justice
Department.
The minister need not wonder why sometimes bills get off on the
wrong foot. That is the way things are done, even by the
Minister of Justice.
1530
How do they justify, even if it was only a briefing, even if the
government did not hand out the entire text to the
journalists—which I doubt, and we will look into this—how is it
that the journalists knew all the ins and outs of this bill
before the parliamentarians, before those who are elected to
represent the public?
Knowing the officials of the Department of Justice as I do, in
the case of the Young Offenders Act, I question the accuracy of
the information. What the minister did today is very serious,
and what she did in the past with other extremely important
bills is also.
It is not even a matter of finding out whether the bill is
complex or not, because we can all read.
The Minister of Justice was very kind. She gave me the bill as
she came into the House at 2.00 p.m. for Oral Question Period.
It was as if I, a member of the opposition, did not have Oral
Question Period, as if it was not important for me to follow
what went on in it and I had to read between 79 and 85 pages of
the minister's text to keep up with the journalists at 3.00 p.m.
That makes no sense. It is treating the opposition members, in
fact all members with disdain.
An hon. member: And the House as well.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: And, as my colleague has said, treating
the House with disdain as well.
Mr. Speaker, you should intervene to put an end to the way the
Department of Justice is operating.
There is a small example in the case of the Young Offenders Act
worth recalling, where everything went off the rails following a
briefing of journalists. The officials had failed to give out
the entire text of the Young Offenders Act. The government
talked about flexibility, when in fact there was none. On that
occasion, when the officials did not give journalists a copy of
the text, how could the journalists leave with all the
information? They left with the information the Department of
Justice wanted them to have.
As things stand, as a member of the opposition and critic for
justice issues, I cannot even properly inform these journalists
because the government did not give me the documents on time.
What was so urgent? Perhaps there is an urgent matter. Why was
the Minister of Justice in such a hurry to introduce this bill
today, before members of parliament had a chance to look at it?
We are well aware, and the Chair even more so, that there are
days during the week when bills can be introduced, when the
minister could introduce her bill, in the morning, around 10
a.m., as she did today. She could also have met the media in the
morning, at 11 a.m., like she did this morning. But why did she
act differently? Perhaps it was to engage in politics, to catch
the opposition with its pants down, or whatever.
Perhaps it was to not give the media the appropriate information
at the appropriate time, so as to throw them off track.
The minister need not wonder why her department is having
problems. It is simply because her department's way of operating
is not right and shows contempt for members of parliament.
Mr. Speaker, in order to prevent another such mess, I am asking
you very sincerely—because I know that you have great qualities
and broad experience as a parliamentarian—to not let this
practice go on at the Department of Justice or at any other
department. You must take action because you care a lot about
the work of the members of this House and you want to ensure
that they have the necessary tools to carry out their duties as
parliamentarians, properly and in a timely fashion.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking you very sincerely to take action so
that the Minister of Justice stops showing contempt for members
and the House, as she has been doing since assuming her
responsibilities.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately this is the second day in a row on which we have
had to rise on points of order or privilege having to do with
ministers doing things outside the House that either should be
done in here or should be done first in here.
1535
I appeal to your sense of history, Mr. Speaker, and your place
in it. When the history of parliament is written, and when the
history of this parliament is incorporated into that longer
history of parliament, will this be the parliament in which the
long, slow but steady decline of parliament is arrested? Or,
will it be just one more parliament in which there is a long,
slow and steady decline of parliament into a more and more
irrelevant chamber? Will more and more things continue to happen
outside parliament, either in the press gallery or in briefings
that could not be attended by members of parliament or whatever
the case may be?
The government House leader did his best in a bad situation.
Knowing what I think I know about him, I cannot believe he thinks
this was the appropriate way to proceed. It is his job to defend
the indefensible on occasion, and I suppose he did the best with
what he had at his disposal.
Whether or not the bill represents an amalgamation of two bills
that existed in the last parliament, even if they are identical
the fact is that the media would come to know they were identical
before we came to know they were identical. They are not
identical anyway because some new things have been added.
It was a pretty pathetic defence of what went on. The Minister
of Justice indeed showed contempt for members by giving any kind
of briefing. It does not matter that it was an embargo briefing.
Let us put on our imagination cap. Let us imagine a political
culture in which the House of Commons is the centre of the
political life of a nation and a new piece of legislation in the
justice area is coming forward. Perhaps it is even an
amalgamation of bills that died in the previous parliament.
What would happen in that imaginary world? The Minister of
Justice would come into the House of Commons and table the bill.
Members of parliament would be given a copy. Perhaps the critics
might be given a courtesy copy earlier, but that would not matter
so much if parliament were getting the copy first.
The media might then have to actually listen to the debate in
parliament about the bill. What a novel idea. They might have
to say that if they are to find out what people think about the
bill they will have to come into the House of Commons and listen
to members of parliament. God forbid they would not be spoon fed
at secretive briefings by spin doctors in the minister's
department. Let us imagine the wonderful fantasy I have just
laid out.
At one time that was probably real life around here. Now it is
just a fading dream, a dream that gets more distant and more
unreal from parliament to parliament.
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker. Only you, by using the powers
vested in you in the chair in terms of moral suasion, procedural
decisions and procedural rulings, can stop this slide into total
irrelevancy if you choose. It is on occasions such as this one,
by virtue of what you say, that you can either contribute to that
or not. I urge you to stop the slide.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice and my dismay to what
has occurred here as well.
The hon. member for Provencher has outlined quite clearly what
has happened but I would add something. I believe it goes back
even further than this morning's briefings. I left the House of
Commons yesterday after question period and was asked very
specific questions about this omnibus legislation by a CBC
reporter from Radio-Canada.
This highlights again the absolute contempt and disregard the
government has for this place as being the forum, the speaking
point and the stepping off point from which legislation is
announced. Major announcements should be made in this chamber.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona has clearly set out,
that should not be so unattainable. That should not be so beyond
the realm of possibility.
1540
Opposition members in this parliament, the last parliament and
the previous parliament have become all too familiar with
receiving the back of the cabinet's hand, particularly from the
Department of Justice which has an army of administrators and
obviously some very effective spin doctors who like to float
these ideas out to gauge public opinion. We know that is in
keeping with the Liberal way, to govern by polls and make sure
everything is okay before they step in any direction.
This takes it to another level. It takes it to the direct
contempt the government has for opposition members to be involved
in the process at all. By engaging with the media first it is
able to have the clear advantage of getting its message out
first. By not informing members at all until 24 hours later,
even 5 or 6 hours later, it obviously has the upper hand.
The government knows and is familiar with the information in any
event. It does not need this advantage. To refer to the
comments of the House leader for the New Democratic Party, if the
announcements are made in the House the media will come.
Mr. Speaker, you have been around long enough to know that the
media will come. They will report on what takes place here. The
Department of Justice does not have to go to them. It does not
need to seek out the media to ensure its message is heard. It
has ample opportunity to do so in the foyer. It can go to the
press gallery after it has shown the proper respect for members
of the House.
The minister shrugs her shoulders and says that they tried, that
they did their best. That is not good enough.
I know you are most familiar and most attached to the Marleau
and Montpetit publication, Mr. Speaker. With reference to
breaches of privilege, I refer the Chair to page 67 where it
talks about the range of contempt that can exist. It states:
Just as it is not possible to categorize or to delineate what may
fall under the definition of contempt, it is not even possible to
categorize the “severity” of contempt. Contempts may vary
greatly in their gravity; matters ranging from minor breaches of
decorum to grave attacks against the authority of Parliament may
be considered as contempts.
That is footnoted at 91 on page 67. On the previous page again
it refers to the types of contempt and the privileges of the
Chamber. Mr. Speaker, you have been a long serving member of the
House. You know that members want to engage directly with
ministers. They want to have an opportunity to partake in what
is their duty, what they have been sent here to do. That is on
occasion to criticize the government. That is on occasion to
improve legislation. That is also on occasion, a perhaps more
modern responsibility, to engage with the media on the message,
on the legislation or on the issue of the day.
With what has happened here, members have been denied that
right. Members have been denied the ability to speak directly to
information. I was asked specifics about a bill that I had not
seen. Clearly that reporter had received some specifics.
It does not take Sherlock Holmes and a fleet of detectives to
figure out that the information came from one source, the
Department of Justice. That is wrong. It is absolutely
inexcusable that information is leaked out of the department and
given to reporters who can then assail members of the opposition
as they leave the Chamber and ask them to comment on something
they have not seen.
The minister must take responsibility for this. It goes to the
broader issue of the absolute melting away of ministerial
responsibility that we have seen in the government's
administration. Heaven forbid that a minister would stand to
apologize to all members for what happened in the department, to
agree to find out what happened, or to give assurances that it
will not happen again and to try harder. It has never happened.
The government refuses to take responsibility.
The Speaker: I know the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough was trying to be helpful to the
Chair but there are a lot of hon. members who could go on at
length on the subject he has raised.
I would like to deal with the question of privilege that has
been raised and that is this bill. If we stick to that, I think
I am getting to the point where I will have heard the points to
be made on this and would like to get on.
1545
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I will take that advice to
heart and try to stay more directly on the point. To that point,
Mr. Speaker, you would be very aware of the range of actions, the
way in which you can respond, that is available to the Chair.
I again refer to Montpetit and Marleau at page 69 where it
states:
The reluctance to invoke the House's authority to reprimand,
admonish or imprison anyone found to have trampled its dignity or
authority and that of its Members appears to have become a near
constant feature of the Canadian approach to privilege.
This goes to another point. There has to be a line drawn in the
sand. There obviously has to be another message sent. There has
to be another shot across the bow of the government, similar to
what happened in the last parliament.
This is the second occasion in two days. In fact, there were
two occasions yesterday, not one, where the government chose to
make announcements outside the House and then come in and parrot
those same remarks, which shows nothing but contempt for the
members present. We know that this is a partisan administration,
but this has to be the Chamber where this information is
exchanged, first and foremost.
In your authority and your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you
to look at this serious breach of privilege and to act, to at the
very least respond to the government, to take it under
advisement, to look at precedent, because this slippery slope we
are on is clearly adding to the impression of the Canadian
population that this Chamber is becoming irrelevant. That should
be cause for all members to sit up and take notice. If this
Chamber is further diminished in its usefulness, we are all in
serious trouble.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take the hon. member for Provencher's
question of privilege very seriously. I know that you will. I
know you have great respect for this Chamber and for the
privileges of members present. You, Mr. Speaker, are the
protector of all members. I would suggest that quite clearly
some members, mainly members of the opposition and possibly
members of the backbench of the Liberal government, have been
completely denied their rights and privileges by virtue of what
has occurred out of the Department of Justice.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the process involved in tabling this
omnibus bill on justice strikes at the very heart of democracy in
parliament, and the process that we have just seen is the very
heart of the problem.
A notice went out stating that there was going to be a briefing
session at 11.45 a.m. today, and it was to be held on the omnibus
bill that was to be tabled by the justice minister. We know that
the government has made it a practice to leak information but
this is a blatant contempt of parliament, Mr. Speaker. The
notice went out, and it did not say media only. There was not
even any mention of them.
The problem I have is that my staff member went to this briefing
expecting to be told what was in the bill. No briefing was given
to us or even scheduled before the bill was tabled. My executive
assistant went to the briefing but he was not allowed in.
However, a Liberal staff member was seen to enter. A little
while later a reporter asked me questions about the bill, so it
was not a lockup.
I am really shocked and dismayed by the contempt that the
Minister of Justice holds for us as members of parliament. I
cannot do my job as an MP if the government withholds information
from us and it is obvious that this is a deliberate attempt to
withhold information from us. The Liberals are deliberately
undermining the opposition's ability to do its job of holding
them accountable. We know why the Liberals do this. They want
the media to give a favourable report on what they do. They want
to avoid criticism.
In regard to this lack of process that is directed at the
opposition, I take this personally, Mr. Speaker, because contrary
to what the House leader said, that these were just a couple of
bills from last year, rumour has it that there were substantial
amendments to the Firearms Act. The government wants to draw
attention away from that disaster.
1550
The justice minister should be held in contempt of parliament.
That is my main point. Democracy cannot operate if there is not
a free flow of information, and this issue strikes at the very
heart of the way Canadians want this country to be governed.
Canadians want us to hold the government accountable. I have
had to submit over 70 access to information requests to this
point already to find out what has been going on in the justice
department and in the administration of that particular piece of
legislation known as Bill C-68.
A key part of our role is to respond to legislation in the media
in a timely fashion, to use the minister's own words. A point of
privilege was dismissed earlier this week because it was ruled
that the government made announcements outside of parliament on
major issues. However, we could at least attend those. Here we
were restricted. We were not allowed to go.
Now the government has done something designed to deliberately
undermine our ability to effectively criticize legislation. It
was deliberate, so that we were not able to respond in a timely
fashion, and the news reports have already gone out on this.
It is no secret that the firearms legislation is a disaster.
This omnibus bill contains amendments to—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has tried to
be helpful and, I am sure, some of his comments have been very
helpful to the chair, but getting mixed up with the firearms
legislation and the value of that and so on is not really very
helpful.
If he has another point to make in respect of this question of
privilege, I will hear him, but I would prefer to bring this to a
conclusion. I think I have the point, and I am not hearing new
facts. The member gave me a few new ones earlier on in his
remarks which I found very helpful. If he has more of them I
would like to hear them, but I do not need to hear about other
bills.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, my main point is that
it strikes at the very heart of democracy: the operation of
parliament. This was not a secret, as it was supposed to be
until it was introduced into parliament. The media was briefed,
but we were not. This is a prima facie question of privilege.
The Liberal House leader made a couple of points. I would like
to counter them. If this is simply about bills that were
introduced previously, why did the media even need a briefing on
this? This is the House leader's own argument, really, so he is
not being upfront. It was not embargoed, because we were already
being asked before the bill was introduced to comment on the
bill. It was not embargoed and all the arguments I heard from
that side are not true.
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker. Canadians are so disillusioned
with the process in this place and with democracy that if we do
not do something to fix it right now, the perception will be that
we are totally irrelevant and we might as well just shut this
place down.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I will be brief. I just want to again point out to you
the House leader's argument, which is that because parts of this
bill were introduced in the last parliament, this parliament does
not need to have the same kind of briefing.
However, members of our caucus were approached by the media as
they came into the House of Commons and were asked to comment on
that bill. These are new members of parliament who never had the
honour of serving in the last parliament. How on earth could the
government House leader use that argument?
Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring your attention to page 86 of
Marleau and Montpetit. Speaker Fraser ruled at an earlier time
that:
The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might
impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and
functions.
The privileges of a member are violated when any action impedes
his or her ability to do the job. On the next page, page 87,
Speaker Jerome actually ruled that there is also a prima facie
contempt of the House that exists when a government official, one
that deliberately misleads a minister, has “impeded a Member in
the performance of his duties and consequently obstructed the
House itself”.
1555
In other words it does not matter, I would argue, whether it was
the officials giving the briefing who somehow fouled up something
so that a briefing was given when it was not given to other
members. It does not matter whether it was the minister who
fouled up and whether it was deliberate or not.
What happened is that actions were taken today which impeded
members of parliament from doing their jobs and by so doing, Mr.
Speaker, I feel you must find that this is a prima facie case of
contempt. I urge you to ask the member to put the appropriate
motion, which is to move this into committee where a full
investigation can be made and it can come back to the House with
the appropriate recommendations.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Provencher for
raising this question of privilege. I also thank all the other
hon. members who took part in the discussion this
afternoon—namely the hon. House leader of the official
opposition, the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, the hon.
member for Winnipeg—Transcona, the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the hon. government House leader
and the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville. I greatly appreciate
your comments.
[English]
The Chair will take the matter under advisement and will get
back to the House. If hon. members have any documents relating
to this briefing that might be helpful to the Chair, I would
appreciate receiving copies through the Clerk in order that I may
look at them in respect of the matter. I assure the House that I
will come back to the House in due course with a ruling on this
point.
* * *
CANADA ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION ACT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-295, an act respecting the protection of
wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or extinction.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in briefly introducing the bill I will
say that it is intended as such to protect wildlife species in
Canada from extirpation and extinction.
Nine years ago in Rio, Canada signed the international
convention on biological diversity. The bill reflects Canada's
commitment and takes into account reports that in Canada 364
species are at risk of extinction and that habitat loss is the
number one cause.
If the bill becomes law it would make the scientific list of
species at risk the legal list. It would make it an offence to
harm, disturb or kill endangered species or their habitat. It
would ensure that provinces implement equivalent legislation
through the bill, thus providing mandatory habitat protection to
all endangered species in Canada.
The bill is intended to serve as a benchmark for Bill C-5, the
legislation introduced recently by the government.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-296, an act to amend the
Income Tax Act (allowances paid to elected officials).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill seeks to
enforce into law recommendations made by the independent
commission on compensation for parliamentarians, which conducted
its business three years ago. I note that a similar commission
is now engaged in a similar review.
The bill would eliminate from the Income Tax Act those
provisions that exempt from taxation allowances paid to elected
officials, and not just members of parliament but all elected
officials, for expenses incidental to the discharge of their
duties. This would end the very disturbing practice of
parliamentarians exempting themselves from the same tax laws they
impose on all other Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
OBSERVANCE OF TWO MINUTES OF SILENCE ON REMEMBRANCE DAY ACT
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-297, an act to promote the
observance of two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day.
1600
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is identical to one I
introduced which was debated in the previous parliament. It is
based on a similar statute adopted by the parliament of Ontario
and the Westminster parliament.
It would formally recognize and invite Canadians to observe two
minutes of silence on Remembrance Day. It is the fruit of
recommendations from the Royal Canadian Legion and other veteran
organizations.
I look forward at some point in this parliament to presenting
over 50,000 petition signatures in support of the bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-298, an act to amend the
Income Tax Act (exemption from taxation of 50% of U.S. social
security payments to Canadian residents).
He said: Mr. Speaker, my third and final private member's bill
today would re-establish the status quo ante with respect to the
taxation of social security payments made to Canadian residents
from the United States government.
The Liberal government had renegotiated the tax treaty with the
United States in such a way as to prejudice financially seniors
resident in Canada who receive social security payments.
The bill would correct that egregious mistake, which has cost
many low income and fixed income seniors very dearly in financial
terms, by restoring the original inclusion rate of 50% for social
security payments to Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PARLIAMENTARIANS' CODE OF CONDUCT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-299, entitled Parliamentarians' Code of Conduct.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few
words about my private member's bill to establish a code of
conduct for parliamentarians.
It provides for an ethics counsellor who would report directly
to parliament and would do so annually. Such legislation exists
in every province and territory in the country and in many other
countries that have parliamentary systems similar to that of
Canada.
It is clear that we need such conflict of interest legislation
and such a code of conduct to prevent the further erosion of
confidence in parliament as an institution and to restore
confidence that parliamentarians will act not with conflict of
interest but with the public interest at heart.
I know I do not have time to outline it in detail, but the
attempt to get such a code of conduct into parliament has had a
long history, including a committee which our current Speaker
co-chaired.
In conclusion, my former colleague from Halifax West introduced
a similar bill not once but twice in the previous session of
parliament. If the government had seen fit to follow the lead of
Gordon Earle in this matter, we might have been spared the
unseemly spectacle of the swirl around the Shawinigan affair and
the defamation matter that has surrounded the official
opposition.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the seventh report of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented
to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have the
unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
1605
[English]
The Speaker: At the request of the chief government whip,
the vote on the motion is deferred until the conclusion of
government orders later this day.
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present to the House a petition signed by residents of the city
of Val-d'Or and the Vallée-de-l'Or RCM regarding the
Sigma-Lamaque and Beaufor mines.
The petitioners call upon parliament to set up a financial
assistance program for thin capitalization mines in Canada's
resource regions.
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I present a petition which calls for the elimination
of inequities in the tax code against single income families with
children. The petition is signed by some 70 residents of the
province of British Columbia.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to present two petitions. The first
petition deals with child pornography.
The petitioners are asking parliament to take all measures
necessary to ensure that possession of child pornography remains
a serious criminal offence and that federal police forces be
directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the
protection of children.
CANADA POST
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition addresses the issue of collective
bargaining rights and rural route mail couriers.
The petitioners ask that subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post
Corporation Act be repealed so that private sector workers who
deliver mail in rural areas have collective bargaining rights, as
do public sector workers who deliver mail for Canada Post in
urban areas.
VIOLENCE
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of the House
a petition organized by one of my constituents, Mr. Cran
Campbell.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House the level of
violent material on the Internet in interactive video and
computer games. They want the House to understand the
detrimental effects that this interactive marketing of violence
has on children and on society.
They also want to express their concern with the definition of
obscenity in the criminal code and the fact that there is a linkage
in the criminal code regarding obscenity between sex and
violence. They feel this issue should be addressed by the House
to protect Canada's children from this exploitive marketing of
violence.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I should like to present two petitions signed by 666 Canadians.
The first one is from Falun Dafa of Canada, the peace team that
is asking Canada to act as a mediator, if necessary, with the
Chinese government to assist those who have been imprisoned for
practising Falun Gong.
The second petition asks the Canadian government to apply for
diplomatic immunity and visas for Canada's Falun Dafa peace
delegation to visit China.
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition signed by many
Canadians who feel strongly about our health care system.
The petitioners want to see the government enforce the Canada
Health Act and the five principles of medicare.
1610
They feel so strongly about our health care system that they
call upon parliament to enshrine the Canada Health Act and the
five principles of medicare in the Canadian constitution to
guarantee national standards of quality publicly funded health
care for every Canadian citizen as a right.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
submit a petition signed by residents of my riding of
Pierrefonds—Dollard.
As the right of landing fee of $975 for each prospective
immigrant creates an impediment for those with large families
wishing to immigrate to Canada and places a heavy burden on those
who are seeking to integrate themselves into the Canadian
economy, the petitioners are asking the Canadian parliament to
abolish this right of landing fee.
PENSIONS
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my second petition is also signed by residents of my
riding of Pierrefonds—Dollard.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that
the 10 year residency requirement of the Old Age Security Act for
eligibility for full pension and partial pension primarily
applies to landed immigrants and causes a hurdle for them to
integrate and contribute freely to Canadian society.
The petitioners ask the Canadian parliament to abolish the 10
year residency requirement for all seniors.
CANADA POST
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to present a petition signed by 30 people
mostly from my riding of Red Deer.
My constituents are concerned that rural route mail couriers
often earn less than the minimum wage and that private sector
workers who deliver mail in rural areas have collective
bargaining rights, as do public sector workers who deliver mail
for Canada Post in urban areas.
Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to repeal
subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
HEALTH
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition from my riding of Mississauga
South, which is particularly apt since we have a votable motion,
Motion No. 155, on health warning labels.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the Food
and Drugs Act is designed to protect Canadians from potentially
harmful effects related to the consumption of products.
They point out that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may
cause health problems. In particular, fetal alcohol syndrome and
alcohol related birth defects are 100% avoidable by avoiding
alcohol during pregnancy.
Therefore the petitioners call on the House to mandate health
warning labels such as prescribed by Motion No. 155, which is a
votable motion, to caution expectant mothers and others of the
risks associated with alcohol consumption.
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by some
3,500 residents, principally if not completely from Ontario.
Essentially they are supporting the private member's bill which
I introduced that seeks to restore a more fair tax regime for
Canadian recipients of U.S. social security payments, and to undo
the negative effects of the third protocol between Canada and the
United States by restoring the 50% tax inclusion rate for social
security payments.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In relation to questions on
the order paper I have a very legitimate complaint. I have a
number of questions on the order paper dating back to the last
parliament. In two months' time these questions will enjoy their
first birthday in the House without a response from the
government.
Reading through Beauchesne's and Marleau and Montpetit, the
questions were accepted by the Clerk of the House. They were
deemed to be in order but I have not had a response from the
government.
The urgency on this matter has to be made public. Two questions
in particular have to do with the selling of military equipment
by the government through a third party. The third party is
called Lancaster Aviation.
Not to deviate too far from the rules, this is important because
we are questioning the government on the selling of 40 Bell
helicopters.
1615
There is some legitimate concern being expressed by the public
that these helicopters may have fallen into the hands of
paramilitary groups, rogue nations and terrorists.
The Speaker: The hon. member is on a point of order and
is not here to make a speech. I presume he has made his point
that these questions have not been answered for an extended
period. I think that is the point of order.
Perhaps we could hear from the hon. parliamentary secretary in
that regard, if he wishes to respond, and bring the matter to a
conclusion.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the member's
point of order. I admit to being a little unclear personally as
to the status of questions asked and unanswered in a previous
parliament. If it is the practice or convention or rule that
questions asked in a prior parliament carry over to a subsequent
parliament provided the member is re-elected, then I certainly
would see to the obtaining of the answers the hon. member has
sought and would do that forthwith.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the questions have been
put on the order paper in the 37th parliament. The point I am
making is that we have gone through two parliaments in almost a
year, and we will be blowing out the candle on this one before
the answer is received. There is no excuse for the government
not coming up with these answers. It is a consistent pattern
of—
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for the
clarification for the benefit of the parliamentary secretary. I
am sure the matter will be looked into. If we do not receive a
satisfactory response, perhaps we will hear from the hon. member
again tomorrow when the questions come up.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has asked that all questions be
allowed to stand. I am sure the House would want to hear from
him again if he does not have a response.
Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Earlier in routine proceedings the matter of concurrence in the
seventh report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs came up. As a result of that, there was a recorded
division requested and deferred.
I am asking if there would be unanimous consent in the House at
this time to dispense with that deferred recorded division and to
deal with the matter of concurrence at this time.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to withdraw the
motion from consideration later this day?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2001
The House resumed from March 2 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-13, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: When the House last had this matter under
consideration the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest had the
floor and he had eight minutes remaining in the time allotted for
his remarks.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, thank you for your generosity. Those eight minutes will
mean a lot to our party at this end of the Chamber.
What we are talking about on Bill C-13 are technical changes to
the GST. The point I was making when we last debated this is the
fact that our party will certainly support those technical
changes to the GST.
It is somewhat ironic that we are supporting a bill on the GST,
which the government said it was going to eliminate when it took
office in 1993. I think it is important that the government
address that very issue of the elimination of the GST and why it
did not live up to that red book promise dating back to the 1993
campaign.
As everyone well knows, just about every member on that side of
the House—possibly yourself, Mr. Speaker, although I am sure you
were probably more reserved in your comments on this than some of
the members—went door to door talking about the elimination of
this dreaded tax. Now this dreaded tax which the government
promised to eliminate is one of the taxes that is certainly
filling its coffers and helping to balance the books.
1620
One of the other points I made and that I think will be made
later today by our party as the debate unfolds is the fact that
there are other matters of urgency on the economic side which the
government should be but is not addressing.
The Prime Minister and the finance minister are sort of
whistling by the cemetery in their walk through la-la land. There
are some troubling signs that the economy might be stalling, that
it might be in trouble. They are ignoring those signs and not
even extending some sort of courtesy to the House in terms of at
least introducing a budget.
The last time the House actually discussed a budget was with
regard to the so-called mini budget on the eve of the last
election. Things have changed in the last 120 days. I suggest
that it was probably a strategic move on the part of the Prime
Minister. Knowing full well that there were some troubling signs
on the horizon in terms of the economy, he made what would turn
out to be the right decision, I guess, in the timing of the
election.
Again, a lot of things have changed in the last 120 days. What
we are saying is that the minister should introduce a budget to
address some of the concerns we see and to possibly offer some
suggestions to the government on how it can deal with the
faltering economy.
The belief that we are going to be somehow insulated from what
might happen in the United States is absurd when 80% to 85% of
our exports go to the United States. They are our biggest
trading partner. When they catch a cold we are most likely to
catch pneumonia. It is possible.
The truth is, those are some of the considerations that should
be taken in the House to address some fast changing circumstances
on the economic front.
With that I will conclude my remarks. As always, I look forward
to questions and comments from my colleagues.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): 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.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare the motion carried.
Accordingly, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on
Finance.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred
to a committee)
* * *
CANADA SHIPPING ACT, 2001
The House resumed from March 12 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-14, an act respecting shipping and navigation and to amend
the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 and other acts, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-14, an act
respecting shipping and navigation and to amend the Shipping
Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 and other acts.
With such a long title, members will surely understand that the
bill will be better known as the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, its
short title.
Once passed, this bill will replace the Canada Shipping Act,
other than the portions that concern liability. So, basically it
will modernize the current legislation and will promote the
safety and economic performance of the commercial marine industry
as well as ensure the safety of those who use pleasure craft.
1625
Referring to Clause 6, it states that the objectives of the bill
are: first, to protect the health and well-being of the crews and
passengers; second, to impose standards as to the proficiency of
the crew; third, to protect the marine environment from damage
due to navigation and shipping activities; fourth, to protect the
vessels and the environment; fifth, to develop a regulatory
scheme and consequently to design administrative sanctions for
violators; sixth, to ensure that Canada can meet its
international obligations under bilateral and multilateral
agreements with respect to navigation and shipping.
Before getting any further in the review and analysis of this
bill, I would like to draw you attention to a clause that raises
many issues and intrigues me a lot.
I am talking about the definition of the word “passenger”, in
fact, about what comes after that definition.
Clause 2 of the bill defines the various terms used in the act
and gives an interpretation for each one. The word “passenger”
is defined as follows, and I quote:
So far, so good. Traditionally, with this government, the
definition of “passenger” has always been very clear. The term
refers to a person who boards a ship that belongs to the owner or
the operator.
However, when I keep on reading, I start wondering. Right after,
it says, and I quote again from Clause 2:
(i) the master, a member of the crew or a person
employed or engaged in any capacity on board the vessel on the
business of that vessel,
It is quite clear that the master and crew are excluded from the
passenger category. What is strange is the exclusion coming next:
a person who is under one year of age. Why?
Why is a child under one year of age not a full-fledged person
under Canadian law? What would be the impact of that
definition, or rather that exclusion, in the event of an accident
or a shipwreck, for example? Since they are not considered as
passengers, would children under one year of age be excluded from
any insurance settlement?
Puzzled, I sought to know and I asked questions. I got answers,
but disturbing and rather strange ones. The Canadian government
would have been forced to include this exclusion clause for
children under one year of age in the bill because Canada would
be bound by international treaties, protocols or resolutions it
had signed.
Has Canada forgotten that former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney
himself presided over the community of nations that agreed to
sign the Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Is it really necessary to add that the United States were not
part of that community of nations?
After having been such a leader on the issue of children's
rights, how can Canada accept that children under one year of age
be considered as non-beings? This is unacceptable according to
me.
If there are countries which do not respect children, we must
refuse to sign conventions or protocols with those countries. If
we do sign such documents for valid reasons, we must require that
this exclusion be removed.
Canada should be ashamed of including such a clause in one of
its laws. Canada should be ashamed of hiding behind a document
signed with another country. Since when has Canada relinquished
its sovereignty?
1630
There is hope however. Three clauses in this bill refer
directly to international conventions, protocols or resolutions.
Under clause 31, Governor in Council may even amend international
agreements. Therefore, the government cannot use the signed
documents as an excuse to justify refusing to amend clause 2 in
order to delete that exclusion of children under one year of age.
As the answer was not satisfactory to me, I continued to
investigate and ask questions. Someone pointed me in another
direction. What I was told is so far out that I want to share it
with you.
To have a good understanding of the explanation given to me, I
will go back to the bill and quote clause 115:
115. (1) Every passenger on board a vessel shall comply with
any direction that is given to them by the master or a crew
member to carry out the provisions of this Act or the
regulations.
(2) Every passenger on board a vessel shall comply with a
direction to leave the vessel that is given to them by the
master before the vessel embarks on a voyage.
Perhaps this clause excluding children under one year of age was
included in the bill because these children who are 364 days old
and under would not be able to obey the captain's order, whereas
those who are 365 days old and over would.
I am a pre-school education expert and I can assure you that
several captains and several crew members will soon be
encountering multiple problems when asking children barely over
a year old, at least up to five years old, to leave a vessel.
They will need help to make these children obey that order from
the captain.
That explanation given to me to justify the exclusion of
children under one year of age is totally ridiculous. A
364-day-old child could not obey the captain's order, but a
365-day-old child could.
I have another question regarding this clause excluding children
under one year of age. Nowhere in this bill does it say that
these children cannot board a ship. It just says that they are
excluded from the definition of “passenger”. Then how should we
interpret clause 110? I quote:
110. (1) The master of a vessel shall ensure that the number of
persons carried on board is not more than the number of persons
authorized to be on board under any certificate issued under this
Part or under an international convention or protocol listed in
Schedule 1.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, this legislation
provides that children under the age of one are not passengers,
but it does not define what a person is.
Consequently, the definition of person has to be a
reasonable one, and, in this case, a child under one year of age
is a person without being a passenger. The child is included
in the total number of people who must not be aboard the ship to
ensure that the number of people on board does not exceed the
number of people authorized under the certificate. Even if they
are not passengers, these children should be treated the same way
as the master and crew of the vessel and counted among the
persons on board.
While I am making my comments on the bill, I would like to draw
your attention to the fact that the legislation clarifies the
respective responsibilities of the transport and the fisheries
and oceans departments. Clause 35 even provides that either one
of the ministers can make recommendations to the governor in
council for the making of regulations implementing the bill after
it has been passed by both Houses and it has received royal
sanction.
The enactment organizes the contents, updates the terminology
and streamlines substantive requirements to make the law much
clearer and easier to understand.
1635
The enactment amends the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act,
1987 to inject greater competition within shipping conferences,
to streamline the administration of the act and to ensure that
Canadian legislation covering international liner shipping
conferences remains in harmony with that of Canada's major
trading partners.
This bill has 14 parts, some under the responsibility of the
Department of Transport and others under the responsibility of
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, although three of them
are standard in legislation providing for transitional measures
or consequential amendments to various bills.
Under the responsibility of the Department of Transport are:
part 1, defining the terms and the application of the
legislation; part 2, providing for the registration, listing and
recording of vessels; part 3, which includes provisions regarding
the skills and the hiring conditions of crew members; part 4,
providing for the safety of passengers and crew members; part 6,
dealing with incidents, accidents and casualties. This part
defines the right to salvage, the obligations in case of
collisions, and the powers of inquiry into causes of death. Part
9 defines the responsibilities of the department as regards
pollution prevention. Finally, part 11 deals with enforcement and
various powers of the Minister of Transport.
Under the authority of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are
part 5, which contains provisions relating to navigation
services, the creation of vessel traffic zones and the
obligations of vessels during search and rescue operations; part
7, which deals with wreck, particularly their ownership and
disposal; part 8, which determines the responsibilities of the
minister in the area of pollution and provides for the making of
regulations on pollution prevention and response; and part 10,
which contains provisions relating to pleasure crafts.
As we can see, this bill contains two parts dealing with
pollution: part 8, which is under the authority of the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans, and part 9, which is under the authority
of the Department of Transport.
Part 8 is entitled “Pollution prevention and response”, while
part 9 deals only with prevention. Each part begins by giving the
definitions which apply in it. Three expressions or words are
found in both part 8 and part 9: oil pollution incident,
polluted, and discharge.
Surprisingly enough, even if part 8 and part 9 use the same
word, namely discharge, each part does not give the same
definition of the word. I really wonder why the word
discharge is not given the same meaning by both parts of the
bill dealing with the same matter. This seems to be, at the very
least, an anomaly.
On the face of it, the Bloc Quebecois supports the purpose of
the bill. This is a bill we want to modernize. It is high time
that we did what is necessary to be up to date in the area of
shipping.
Furthermore, the Bloc Quebecois has also given its support to
Bill S-2 respecting marine liability.
However, one thing is interesting. When the Minister of
Transport introduced his bill on March 1, he was quoted in the
press release as saying that the purpose of the bill was to
promote economic growth in the shipping industry.
The Bloc Quebecois has already often indicated, and uses every
opportunity to repeat, that the only way, as far as it is
concerned, to increase, promote, enhance and develop economic
growth in the shipping industry is to adopt a real federal
shipbuilding policy and to take concrete measures to assist the
shipbuilding industry.
1640
It is high time that the government decided to put aside the
Minister of Finance's personal interests and take to heart the
interests of the people of Quebec and Canada and give us a
shipbuilding policy.
The questions I have raised require meaningful answers. I hope
the Canadian government will never pass a bill where children
under one year of age are excluded.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Order, please. Before we get
into questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing
Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member
for Dewdney—Alouette, Ethics Counsellor.
[English]
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, our reading of the act is that it imposes high
standards for Canadian shippers in terms of safety, the
environment and the qualifications of people who man and operate
the ships.
For clarification, the area we are concerned about is where the
act refers to the offshore registration of ships. My reading of
that section indicates that we would accept offshore companies if
they met or exceeded Canada's very high standards. I think this
area needs clarification. Many Canadians feel legislation too
often leaves loopholes. Many Canadians feel, for example, that
the family trust legislation allowed well to do people to escape
taxation.
The concern I have is that there are lots of international
shippers registered in countries such as Liberia and the Bahamas.
For example, there is a company called Canada Steamship Lines
International. I think some of the members on the other side
might be familiar with the company. About the only thing
Canadian about it is the name and maybe some of the ownership.
The question I am getting at is that we had the beef boycott in
Canada, and in protecting the public interest we shot first and
checked second. What safeguards does the public have in this act
that international shippers, if they should come into our waters,
will comply with our standards regarding environment and safety
and the qualification of the people who operate the vessels? If
they run afoul of those requirements what enforcement remedies do
we have? What can we do with a company such as Canada Steamship
International if something like that should happen? That is the
question on which I would like clarification.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting
question, but it ought to be raised in committee. The bill will
soon be referred to a committee and we will have to put questions
directly to the officials who will come before the committee and
to the government so they can give us some explanation for the
extremely important problem raised by my colleague.
We should see to it that Canada's shipping industry register its
ships in Canada and that these ships sail proudly under the
Canadian flag, at least in Canadian waters. The heritage minister
should provide flags to those Canadian shippers who are unable to
get them or who get their flags from other countries because they
are cheaper. Perhaps we should ask that the government see to it
that we truly have our own shipping industry in this country.
1645
If we had a shipbuilding policy, we would not have to be ashamed
to think that the finance minister's ships fly the flag of
countries other than his.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for my colleague. I happen to live on the shores of the
St. Lawrence River. I hear about many incidents at sea involving
ships that are carrying oil or other dangerous substances. Not a
month goes by without a major disaster happening, which causes
pollution in some part of our planet.
What I fear, as do other people living along the shores of the
St. Lawrence River with whom I spoke, is that some day one of
those disasters will happen right here. Just imagine an oil
slick on the river and the damage it would cause.
Under clause 11 of the bill, the minister can have vessels
inspected.
Would my colleague agree that, in order to improve safety on the
St. Lawrence River, we should have mandatory inspection of
vessels coming from the sea, when they enter the St. Lawrence
River? Vessels would be automatically inspected to provide the
level of security needed to protect the shores of the St.
Lawrence River.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Champlain for his question, which gives me an opportunity to get
another very important message across.
We realize that the Food Inspection Agency is not working
properly because of a shortage of veterinarians. Yesterday
morning, at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, we
also realized that Fisheries and Oceans Canada is not operating
properly because they do not have enough inspectors to inspect
the lobster catch, for example, in the bay, in New Brunswick and
in Prince Edward Island.
People are very concerned when they see the government buying
huge expensive trucks equipped with nice shinny mirrors, but
forgetting that fish has to be inspected in water. Fisheries and
Ocean has forgotten that.
I can see improvements in this bill, but we have had across the
way for the last seven or eight years a mean government trying to
save money everywhere it can and making sure that we do not have
the means to respect the policies and the legislation it puts
forwards.
While this bill is promising, if the legislation is not
implemented better than the Food Inspection Agency or inspection
scheme at Fisheries and Oceans, which is now using beautiful red
and white boats—because we just love red and white in this
place—that can be spotted from 150 miles away, it will be as
useless as everything else.
[English]
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc is a very knowledgeable
member who has spoken quite eloquently on this bill. I know she
is very concerned about the environment. She has made many
interventions in the House on that particular topic.
Could she elaborate on the aspects of Bill C-14 which deal with
the environment and pollution? Does she think those are strong
enough measures and would she be able to support them?
1650
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I got really worried when I
read the part about pollution prevention and response.
I do not understand why we need two different parts within the
same bill to deal with this issue and why each part has to be
the responsibility of a different minister. When two people
share the same hat, the hat is never on the right head when a
disaster occurs.
As I said in my speech, we will never know what definition of
the word discharge is to apply, since it is not the same in the
both parts.
This will give rise to some interesting arguments and
challenges. Lawyers will say “You know, the word discharge in
part 8 does not mean exactly the same thing as it does in part 9.
Are you talking about part 8 or part 9?”
I am not sure how good this will be for the environment, but I
think it will be very good for Liberal lawyers.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you would find consent of the House to rescind
the request earlier today for a recorded division on the seventh
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
and deem the said report adopted.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Order discharged and motion agreed to)
* * *
CANADA SHIPPING ACT, 2001
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, an
act to respecting shipping and navigation and to amend the
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 and other acts, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I directed some of my inquiries to my hon. colleague
from the Bloc, regarding the kind of safeguards, remedies and
procedures that we have in place to ensure foreign shipping
companies which enter our waters meet our standards. It is one
thing to put into a bill or into a piece of legislation that we
will allow them in our waters provided they meet or exceed our
standards.
However, I would like someone from the government side, who has
some knowledge on this matter, to clarify this whole area. What
safeguards do we have if we had a real situation, such as Canada
Steamship Lines Inc. entering our waters? If they were
registered in Liberia and something went wrong, what steps could
we take to protect the public interest? I would be very curious
to see what the government has to say on that matter. This is an
area of this act that is defective.
Let me expand on this topic a bit. Let us say this hypothetical
shipping company is registered in Liberia. It has a fleet of 15
ships and staff of 1,500. The shipowner hires employees from the
Ukraine to staff the ships and pays them $2 or $3 a day, which is
much less than our Canadian standards and what my Liberal friends
would say would be a compassionate level of remuneration.
However, the ships do not comply with our safety standards.
The Canadian safety standards, inspection requirements and so on
of ships are very demanding. Our manufacturing requirements for
building ships are extremely demanding. If these ships enter our
waters, we need to make sure they meet our standards in terms of
safety and quality.
We are also be concerned with environmental matters. It is very
easy for shippers without ethics and tough standards to dump
garbage and different things into our waters which could pollute
and cause problems. That is a major concern as well.
1655
I would not be a bit surprised that some of the companies which
register in Liberia or the Bahamas do that in order to escape the
responsibilities, the liabilities and the high standards which we
have in Canada.
I guess another concern is, if they do enter our waters and the
ship crashes or sinks because of a lack of proper manufacturing
safety standards, or it dumps a whole bunch of toxic substances
in the St. Lawrence or the Great Lakes, or their employees bring
diseases into the country because of third world type working
conditions, what precisely would the act do to protect the
Canadian public? What steps can we take against such shippers?
Do we send something off like the Italians did concerning the
Mafia person in Canada? Do we send something off to Liberia and
ask the Liberian authorities to step in and help us out? Do we
go to Liberian court and start some sort of court action to try
to collect damages from that country? I think these are serious
questions.
Members on the government side ought to know these are serious
matters and they cannot be dealt with in a trivial manner. The
Canadian public safety and interest is too important. This
aspect of the bill should be shored up. When it goes to
committee I would encourage government members to really zero in
on this area and address it because it is very skimpy. The act
says “meet or exceed Canadian standards” but I do not see
anything in it that says how we are going to ensure that.
Is the Department of Transport going to send people over to
Liberia, like it did with the Brazilian beef issue, and check
everything out to make sure that it has top insurance standards
on its ships, that it has good humane standards for taking care
of its employees, that it has collective bargaining rights and
tough measures in regard to environmental measures? Is that what
the act contemplates? I do not really see that in the act.
A lot of people have the impression that many important and
powerful Canadians are evading our laws by simply going offshore.
They might preach and talk about Canadian values, high standards
and the Liberal way of doing things, but as soon as they have an
opportunity for their own self interest they go outside the
country. They will circumvent our laws to suit themselves. This
is something that should not be overlooked in the act.
It is a good act with a lot of teeth in it to make Canadian
owners comply with the law. It is lacking detail as to what we
do with international shipping companies that are not registered
in Canada but enter our waters. That section in the act is
inadequate. We need much better clarification on that point.
There is a whole list of things that this section invites. I
would suggest that if international shippers are going to come
into our waters we should require them to register just like
Canadian shippers. This, as it is, is too easy a procedure.
Shippers can go to Liberia, or the Bahamas or some other country
that does not have the Canadian standards, set up operations,
then come into our waters. If they can convince someone in the
Department of Transport, we could have the buck passing that we
saw in the House this afternoon among the Solicitor General of
Canada, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Prime
Minister and others. They all said they could not tell so and so
or they could not tell this department or that department. In
the meantime, the public could be sitting with a disaster on its
hands.
1700
Maybe it is like a ship that sinks in the Great Lakes, in the
St. Lawrence or off the coast of British Columbia and causes a
lot of problems, environmental or otherwise. We would then find
out that we really have no way of dealing with the owners and
that we do not have any enforcement remedies along the line. I
think that is a very serious matter.
I am surprised that a Liberal government, of all governments,
would not have identified the need to really have tough measures
in place in this area. It is a fairly major omission in the
bill. It is very tough on Canadians. It seems to be somewhat
slack for international shippers who would want to come into our
waters.
I am a new member of parliament and have practised law for 25
years. My attitude, based on 25 years, is that I have been shot
as the messenger. Bad laws are passed by governments and I have
to be the messenger for them. I have to deliver the bad news to
my clients and quite often I am the one who gets blamed for it.
I am in a place today where I thought I would be at the front
end of the process. Based on some of the questions of privilege
raised in the House today I am not so sure that I really am at
the front end of the process. I am wondering if I am not back in
Nipawin, Saskatchewan at the back end of the load again.
As a practitioner of law, this is the time to tell the
government to get the legislation clear in this very important
area and make sure it is tough. It should be tougher on foreign
shippers who come in here. Just because they are registered in
Liberia or the Bahamas and Canada is written on the shipping
line, it should not be a licence to come into our waters and
abuse our jurisdiction. We should have very tough shipping laws.
That is a major loophole in the legislation and it should be
tightened up.
This should not be like the family trust matter in the Income
Tax Act. There was some window dressing on that but still the
tax experts, with whom I am familiar, said that the door was
still wide open for wealthy families to evade and escape the tax
responsibilities put into place by the Minister of Finance. We
certainly do not want to see the same sort of thing happening
with shipping in Canadian waters.
We had some major accidents a few years ago, such as the sinking
of the Exxon Valdez off the coast of Alaska. We saw the
environmental damage and disaster that caused. It is important
that we have stringent and tough standards on international
shippers.
I am not happy about a shipper coming into our country who is
paying people who are down and out and in desperate straits. I
wonder where the Liberal compassion is on the issue. The
shippers hire these employees to staff their ships and pay them
$2 a day. I have no idea what the safety or environmental
standards are for people working on those ships. I conjure up
visions of shoe manufacturers going to Malaysia to find people
who are down and out and then pay them starvation type wages and
so on. They then come to Canada and say that they believe in
high standards and the values of compassion and fairness for
Canadians. I guess that does not apply to people elsewhere.
If they are not Canadians and they can get through the
loopholes, why should they not exploit labour, why should they
not forget about collective bargaining rights and all the other
things that the Liberal government has put into place for
Canadians? This is a serious concern.
My reading of the act is that there is only one section that
deals with the matter and it simply states that a foreign owned
company can enter our waters for shipping if the authorities are
satisfied that it meets or exceeds our standards.
1705
Today and over the last few days I heard a lot of buck passing
concerning a Mafia individual who is in Canada. Nobody wants to
accept the responsibility for him being here. People were saying
that they were not in charge of what happens in their departments
and that other people were in charge. I hope that does not
happen in a Valdez-type situation where there could be a major
environmental problem or in a situation where someone is possibly
hauling a banned toxic substance. This could be garbage from
some other country which could be dumped in the St. Lawrence, on
our shores or something along that line.
We should look at our immigration laws and how people look at
Canada. They see our country as an easy place to escape their
responsibilities and liabilities. We are seen in the world as
the country to come to. If people are criminals somewhere else
and the authorities are hot on their path, Canada is the country
to come to. Our supreme court and our government have sent those
signals out. If they can get to Canada, they will probably have
three square meals a day and, if they are lucky, they might get
out to Mission, B.C. and do some golfing with Colin Thatcher
before it is all over, or go to the riding academy.
I think there is a problem with the bill. We see examples in
other areas but the government says things are different here.
There is only one way to make sure it is different. We must get
the bill right the first time. It should have very tough
standards in this area. The standards should be detailed and not
contain just one clause that is a kind of platitude.
The bill contains very extensive details on the registration
requirements but for an international shipper, it is pretty much
a blank cheque. It seems to me we are giving the Department of
Transport authorities an awful lot of room for discretion but
with little direction.
I suppose the minister and the department could get together and
have a briefing session to decide what kind of policy they would
put in place. We in the opposition could then wait three or four
years until one of those ships had a major calamity in our
waters. We would again be embarrassed as opposition members
because we would not know what had taken place behind closed
doors or in starred chambers.
I encourage government members to take a very serious look at
this area. I understand why some government members might be a
bit intimidated to move into this area, especially ones who sit
further back from the front row of the House, but it is important
and they should not let the intimidation factor enter the
picture. We must do our jobs and make sure that we pass good
quality laws. We should not let our personal feelings toward
other members enter the discussion.
This subject also raises the issue of foreign type international
law questions. I do not know if there are any members here from
Prince Edward Island, but authorities found, or thought they
found, some sort of disease on one-quarter or 60 acres of land in
P.E.I. so they totally killed the potato crop industry in P.E.I.
They did this without checking it out and caused terrible harm to
the people of P.E.I..
We almost did the same thing to Brazil. The government decided,
in the context of a trade fight between Brazil and Bombardier and
other matters, that the way to get the message across to the
Brazilians was to hit them where it hurt, which was to shut down
their beef export industry. The government came up with some
sort of bogus allegation and said that in the name of public
safety, it was shutting down that industry until it was satisfied
that the beef was safe.
We then send a bunch of people over there who find out there was
really nothing wrong with the beef and the ban is lifted.
1710
I feel we may also have a lot of problems with the shipping
arrangement. The bar has been set very low for shippers coming
into our country and international shippers who do not meet our
standards come in under the bar. A disaster could happen and we
would end up checking it out afterward. That is not the way to
do things. We should make sure that the legislation is tight and
that it does not have any loopholes. We have enough loopholes in
our laws. We must address this area so it does not become a
major problem.
My hon. colleague from the Bloc made some very good comments and
I encourage the government to take a look at the concerns he
raised. Details will kill us on these sorts of things but this
area has no detail. The devil is in the detail and there are no
details in this area. It is wide open. To me it is almost like
giving a blank cheque to get into our waters.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have followed the hon. member's speech for the last 20
minutes. He opposed everything in the bill but did not propose
any concrete solutions to the problems that he saw. I know his
job as an opposition MP is to oppose whatever the government
proposes, but I wonder if could propose some constructive
solutions for the government to look at.
The member mentioned that we have to meet and exceed standards.
If he is not happy with the in the way we meet and exceed
standards, what would he propose? How much more does he expect
the government to do? I wonder if he would comment on those two
points.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, being from the
prairies, rail transportation is an area that I am much more of
an authority on than marine shipping. It seems to me that we
should look at the safeguards other jurisdictions have in place
to deal with this particular problem. They may have found a new
and better way to deal with this sort of problem.
We have committees to look at those things. Hopefully a good
transport committee could look at this sort of thing. We could
then put down our political caps, quit playing games and look at
some good solid proposals.
Why do we not make international shippers comply with our
requirements? Why does one section of the legislation allow them
to come into Canada under the bar even when they do not meet our
standards. Maybe we should look at that.
When a business or a company wants to do business in Canada they
must comply with all our requirements. We do not impose a bunch
of requirements on Canadians and then allow foreign entities to
come in and do business and bypass the requirements that apply to
the rest of us. This would be one obvious answer to the
question.
I hope my points in this area will be of some help to the
government. I would welcome the opportunity to be on the
transport committee where we could roll up our sleeves and look
at creating a good tight law in this area.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member said in his speech that the
bill does not demonstrate the responses. He said that the bill
is not tough enough. Let me take him through a couple of
passages in the bill.
1715
Let me just take him through a couple of passages in the bill
very quickly. I know he is a lawyer and I know the
bill is 200 pages long, but in fact, were he to look at section
172, just looking at pollution, he would see that a pollution
officer can board any vessel. If he looked at section 176 he
would find that a pollution officer can demand to enter the
premises on any vessel, can demand that equipment be seized and
can demand to make photographs. He will see in section 176,
subsection (4), that with a warrant he can arrest people on
board. He can demand to come aboard and use force.
The minister can seize the vessel and
destroy the vessel. That is section 180. The minister can
remove and actually destroy the vessel if it is deemed to be
polluting.
Finally, subsection 183(2) reads:
Every person who—commits an offence under subsection (1) is
liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than
$1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than
eighteen months—
That is punishment. Did he not read those sections
before he prepared his speech?
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon.
colleague raised those points. Those are the enforcement
provisions which would certainly apply to Canadian owned
steamship operations or to other shippers in our waters. There
is no doubt about it.
The ambiguity in the legislation is what we do with someone who
is not in Canada. The hon. member mentioned the $1 million fine.
If the owner is in Afghanistan and registered in Liberia and
causes $10 million worth of damage in the St. Lawrence River,
what will we do? Will we send the Canadian army over to
Afghanistan, round this guy up and bring him back just like we
are dealing with the Mafia man here? These are not the answers
Canadians are looking for.
Seriously, given this gentleman's background and knowledge as a
journalist and so on, he ought to know better than to come up
with an answer like that. He knows the public wants higher
standards and clear laws, not dancing around or looking for
technicalities, not lawyers and courts with technicalities to get
wealthy people off fines and charges, because they can afford it.
The wealthy people, whether it is through family trusts or
steamship lines, can hire the army of lawyers. He ought to know
that. He has a wealth of experience in the journalistic world
and he should know that.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has raised a number
of questions, as have others. In committee, I think every effort
will be made to respond to them.
For the record I would just like to point out that Canada, as a
port state, is permitted to board any foreign vessel regardless
of the status and currency of its safety certificate and
regardless of its flag.
In fact, in 1999, over 1,000 vessels from 86 different countries
were inspected. Where there were deficiencies, whether they were
with respect to the safety of the workers on those boats or the
marine environment, actions were taken. The bottom line is that
this legislation goes further in modernizing environmental and
safety provisions and will do a better job for all Canadians when
it comes to our offshore and Great Lakes waters.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, that is a good
answer. It is part of the answer.
Let us say we have the guy from Afghanistan who has his ships
registered in Liberia and who brings a ship into Canadian waters.
He owns 14 other ships. He has not posted a bond or put anything
in place in Canada. Let us say we find his ship in our waters
with a toxic substance, maybe nuclear waste, and we know it is
going to be dumped in our water because he does not know where
else to take it. It is brought into Canadian waters. We seize
it and it becomes our problem.
How do we track down this individual who owns these ships and
bring him into this country and make him accountable for the
damages? That is the real question. I can assure everyone that
the wealthy people of the world, whether they are Greek tycoons
or a Canadian family heavily involved in shipping, want to use
these loopholes. These are the very kinds of problems we get
into when a disaster takes place: hunting down these people and
finding an effective enforcement remedy to deal with this.
1720
This is something I think we should take a good, long, hard look
at. We should not just rubber stamp the act, put it through and
hope the system works. In the House today we heard about a
number of cases in regard to the immigration department, where
people were bound and determined to get into Seattle and caused
major damage. They roamed around our country for seven years.
There is another guy who, from what I gather, Hollywood could
make a movie about. He is a dangerous person and he has been in
our country for two years.
I am a member of parliament for Prince Albert trying to get some
answers as to how this could come about. All I find is a bunch
of buck passing. Quite seriously, it is just buck passing from
one department to the other. No one accepts any responsibility.
I do not want a major environmental disaster to happen with an
international shipper in our waters and have this sort of episode
take place here. Now is the time to make sure we have good laws
in place and a system that will get the outputs we want.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from
Prince Albert. He of course hails from the area one of our
previous right hon. prime ministers, the Right Hon. John
Diefenbaker, and he is obviously upholding the tradition of
statesmanship and speaking up for important issues across Canada.
I applaud him for that.
Hon. members on the other side are congratulating the member
from Prince Albert, and I congratulate them for being so
receptive to a new member. That shows they are willing to work
with the Alliance, and we in the Alliance appreciate that.
I would like to talk about Bill C-14. There are many parts of
the bill that have to do with the protection of our environment.
Those are the parts of the bill that caught my attention and I
had the opportunity to look through them. The Alliance is, of
course, the party that cares about the environment. We in the
Alliance care about our environment and we are looking for ways
to work with others in the House, with members from other parties
and from the government side, and to work together on important
issues like the environment.
The environment is of great concern to us. We need to leave our
country in a good state for those who are coming behind us, our
children and future generations, and I would like to give some
recognition to the government for including some issues having to
do with the environment in the bill. I think that is a good
thing.
We are looking for ways to work together in the House. When a
good idea comes forward, even if it is from the government side,
we will make mention of it. We would also do the same in
relation to other parties and hope that others in this place
would work with us in a spirit of co-operation so that we can
tackle the important issues of the country. That is exactly what
we are doing.
The member from the Liberal side who used to be a Conservative
says it makes good sense and I appreciate what he says. Again, I
agree with him on that point.
In terms of the shipbuilding industry, we do have word that the
government will possibly move forward in helping to re-establish
the shipping industry in our nation. We do have some concerns
about that particular topic and the government's approach to that
industry, such as whether it will be working on subsidizing that
industry and using taxpayer dollars to support an industry which
might have difficulty competing on the world market.
I hear my colleague from the other side once again commending me
for my good points and I thank him for that. I truly thank him
for that and for working in the new spirit of co-operation which
the Alliance has initiated. We in the Alliance truly appreciate
it.
We do have some concerns about the way the government might
proceed on that particular issue, but we will save that for
another day because I do want to make my comments pertinent to
Bill C-14, the bill before the House right now.
1725
I see that my comments are sparking great debate, ringing with
agreement around the House. At this late hour of debate in the
House, it is reassuring to us that government members are so
attentive and in agreement with us.
When looking through Bill C-14 I did not see any mention of
double hulling of ships. As a member from British Columbia, not
too far away from the coast, I think it is an issue that should
be explored in committee in regard to the bill, in order to
protect our environment and provide protection to our marine
coastal areas, which are so important to the economy on the west
coast, the east coast and throughout the nation. I would like to
see that point perhaps pursued in committee.
There is something in part 8 of the bill in reference to the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans which reminds me of an issue
in my own riding. There is an area referred to as the Codd
Island wetlands, in Pitt Meadows in British Columbia. It is a
very important and sensitive ecological area. Some experts are
saying that it is one of the last remaining intact wetlands in
the lower mainland area of Vancouver.
Right now there is concern that the area might be developed and
turned into a cranberry bog. That is a concern to many people in
the community. They are working to rally together to see if
there might be some other solutions in order to maintain and
protect this important ecological wetland. I believe there have
been and will be letters to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
and to the Minister of the Environment, both of whom are
ministers of the crown from British Columbia.
We hope that members of my riding would have the ear of the
ministers for their concerns and that a possibility might arise
for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of
the Environment to work co-operatively with the province, the
local jurisdiction of Pitt Meadows and concerned citizens. We
are looking for opportunities to build together to protect that
area.
I know I have digressed a little from Bill C-14, but when I saw
part 8 of the bill regarding the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, I saw it as a good opportunity to bring up this very
important issue of the Codd Island wetlands.
Also in the bill there is a reference in clause 173 to the need
to report to parliament every five years in regard to this
particular bill. We think reporting to parliament is a good
thing.
An hon. member: What about the Titanic?
Mr. Grant McNally: The member on the Liberal side who was
a Conservative is saying that his former party—or maybe he is
saying his party—is going down like the Titanic. I am not
sure that all members would agree with him on that. Perhaps some
would.
The point about reporting to parliament is an important one. We
saw in this place today an example of what happens when a
minister of the crown does not report to parliament and does not
present a piece of legislation first in this place before holding
a briefing and giving information about an important piece of
legislation, in this case Bill C-15, the justice bill. The
minister's department gave information to the media first,
excluding members of parliament from attending the briefing,
saying that it was an embargoed briefing.
I know that Mr. Speaker will be ruling on the matter, but I
think it is worth mentioning again in this place that the
government needs to follow the proper procedures and process to
restore people's faith in this place and that we are in fact the
leaders in terms of what we are doing with legislation and moving
forward together.
What happened here today is an example of why it is important to
follow process. Unfortunately the Minister of Justice did not do
that. We are disappointed with that.
My time is growing short. I will wrap up my comments knowing
that I will have more time at another sitting of the House to
discuss this important bill.
1730
I thank my Liberal colleagues for their agreement with what I
have said today and for their comments and congratulations. We
hope to see them working together with us on many other issues.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It being 5.30 p.m. the
House will now proceed to the consideration of private members'
business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
AMERICAN NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEM
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this
House, the government should take whatever measures are
necessary to ensure that Canada does not participate in the
research, development, or production of components for use
in the proposed American National Missile Defense System.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I thank the hon. member for
Halifax, the national leader of the New Democratic Party, for
seconding this motion. I also thank all my colleagues in the
House of Commons for the work they have been doing across the
country to try to bring to the attention of Canadians, and in
particular to our government, the profound importance of Canada
finally and urgently taking a strong and clear stand in
opposition to the U.S. national missile defence system.
I pay a particular tribute to my colleague, the spokesperson on
defence for the New Democratic caucus, the member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. He has worked
tirelessly on this issue for many years. His predecessor, Gordon
Earle, the former member for Halifax West, also did an
outstanding job in pleading with the government to show
leadership on the issue. It is an issue literally of life and
death not just for Canada but for the planet.
The essential elements of my motion are, first, that the
government should speak out strongly in opposition to the
proposed national missile defence system of the United States in
view of the fact that it represents a very grave threat to
international arms control agreements and raises the serious
possibility of a new nuclear arms race.
Second, it is very important that Canada refuse all
participation in the research, development or production of
components for use in the NMD.
Finally, and in many respects just as important, Canada should
work with other governments to strengthen and deepen existing
arms control agreements toward the goal of eliminating all
nuclear weapons. That must surely be our fundamental goal. It
is in that light that we approach the issue of the proposed U.S.
national missile defence program.
We all recall an earlier version of the program, the so-called
star wars proposal of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Even
the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney spoke out against
that incredibly destructive proposal by President Reagan.
The tragedy today is that we look across at a Liberal government
that remains on the fence. It refuses to take a strong and clear
stand now in opposition to the proposed national missile defence
system. The system clearly threatens the current international
framework of non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament
agreements, areas in which Canada has historically shown
leadership.
Canada along with 186 other states has signed the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty. Canada has formally undertaken, along
with those states:
That was the commitment made by 187 states less than a year ago
in May 2000.
In February of last year United Nations Secretary General Kofi
Annan said that the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation
agenda was in a state of deplorable stagnation and that it was
difficult to approach the NPT review conference with optimism
given the discouraging list of nuclear disarmament measures in
suspense, negotiations not initiated and opportunities not taken.
He said that a dangerous nuclear arms race looms on the horizon.
1735
There is no question whatsoever that a decision by the United
States to proceed with a national missile defence system would
dramatically escalate that nuclear arms race. We know that this
would be a clear breach of the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty
between the United States and Russia.
That treaty is a cornerstone of the international arms control
regime. The United States would simply rip up the treaty.
President Bush would rip it up and indeed President Bush's vision
for star wars goes even further than that proposed by former
President Clinton.
There is no doubt that in many respects it is part of an agenda
to militarize space itself which, as we can all appreciate, would
have a devastating impact again in terms of the nuclear arms
race.
There is no doubt as well that deployment of the NMD would
provoke other nuclear weapons states to counter it by building
more nuclear weapons rather than keeping their NPT promise to
eliminate their own nuclear arsenals.
We know the possible impact in terms of China. The Chinese
ambassador to the United Nations, Hu Xiadi, warned recently that
once the NMD is deployed the treaty on the limitation of
anti-ballistic missile systems, the ABM treaty, will be dead.
To seek complete missile defence capable of protecting all a
country's territory is tantamount to seeking unilateral security
so as to gain freedom to threaten others. As a result, the
threat of nuclear war will loom again and international relations
will become turbulent and unstable.
We know as well the potential implications on other countries in
the region, for example on India, Pakistan and Taiwan among
others. We cannot allow this escalation to take place.
We know as well that the current proposal has already stalled
the negotiation of nuclear disarmament agreements in the UN
conference on disarmament. That again is a tragedy because we
must be moving in the opposite direction for the elimination of
all nuclear weapons.
That is why we are calling on our government to show leadership,
to speak out clearly and forcefully to the United States against
the NMD. We would not be the only country to do so. Indeed, a
number of European countries have raised very grave concerns
about the deployment of the NMD, and indeed the Australian senate
just recently passed a motion strongly opposing it.
Countless groups in Canada that support nuclear disarmament,
including the Canadian Peace Alliance, the Canadian Coalition for
Nuclear Responsibility, les Artistes pour la paix, Veterans
Against Nuclear Arms, Project Ploughshares, Physicians for Global
Survival and many religious groups and others have appealed to
our government to show leadership and to finally speak out.
We know as well that there has been a number of threats, some of
them not so veiled threats, by our United States allies that we
must get on board on this. Indeed, the deputy Canadian commander
of the joint U.S.-Canada NORAD scheme told Liberal MPs last year
that the longer Canada delays its support the less influence it
would have on the system. He said that we must participate. As
my colleague the defence critic has pointed out, the U.S. deputy
commander of space command threatened that the United States
would be under absolutely no obligation to defend Canada unless
it joined the missile shield.
The U.S. ambassador to Canada, Gordon Giffin, has warned Canada.
He said a refusal by Canada to support the NMD would mark a
significant evolution in the historic defence relationship
between Canada and the U.S., and that if the defence relationship
ends it could affect the fabric of the whole relationship. We as
New Democrats say it is time our government rejected those kinds
of threats from the United States and stood up for peace and
nuclear disarmament.
I want to close by once again appealing to the government to
listen to the voices of Canadians, 92% of whom in a recent public
opinion survey called on our government to lead in the struggle
to abolish all nuclear weapons.
1740
That should be the position we take. We should not in any way
participate in NMD itself. I call on members of all parties to
support the motion. I appeal to the Alliance which has recently
stated that it supports the U.S. national missile defence system.
The Leader of the Opposition was in Washington speaking to the
vice-president in strong support of NMD, which is very sad.
We are waiting to hear the position of the Conservatives. They
say they are not sure exactly where they stand. I look forward
to clarification on that position.
We are looking most of all for clarity and leadership from the
Government of Canada, from the Minister of National Defence and
from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We want them to speak out
clearly and say no, no, no to the U.S. national missile defence
system.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government cannot support this motion, and I would like to
explain why.
First of all, and this is a key point, we do not yet know which
system the United States will put in place or what the
international strategic context will be. How can we make a
decision when we were missing such key information?
It is true that the new administration in the United States
clearly indicated that it will establish a national missile
defence system. The American legislation says that the government
will deploy such a system when it is technologically feasible.
But the US government was also very clear on the fact that it
intends to look at all the options available and consult its NATO
allies as well as Russia and China. We need to know more about
all this before we can make a decision.
My colleague mentioned the word leadership. This does not mean
that we are staying idle. Our government has been having serious
discussions with the United States and other countries involved
to look at the repercussions of such a system. Our prime minister
and President Bush have talked about this issue, and so have the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence
and their American counterparts. The prime minister has also
discussed this issue with the president of Russia, the president
of China, the British prime minister and the French president.
At the Canada-United States Permanent Joint Board on Defence,
the PJBD, over which I have the honour of presiding, we have been
following that issue for several months.
We want to pursue our dialogue with all of our friends and
allies and most particularly, of course, with the United States,
in order to be totally aware of the U.S. plans as they develop.
Moreover, we are trying to influence the United States in their
decision-making process on that critical issue in order to find a
solution that would allow for world strategic stability while
strengthening the security of the United States, Canada and our
allies.
The United States are trying to develop a missile defence system
because they feel the threat to their national security has
changed fundamentally because of the proliferation of missile
technology in the so-called “high-risk” countries, namely North
Korea, Iran and Iraq.
Work on research and development of missile defence has been
going on for a long time in the United States, both for the
protection of troops in theatres of operations as well as to
protect larger areas. Members will recall, for example, that the
United States used “Patriot” missiles during the Gulf war to
protect Israel, with moderate success.
According to a report from the American Intelligence Services
published in 1999 under the direction of the current defence
secretary, Mr. Rumsfeld, high risk nations would be able to
develop intercontinental ballistic missiles within five or ten
years, which is much sooner than expected. That and the missile
tests made that same year by North Korea forced Bill Clinton, who
was then president, to sign the National Missile Defence Act in
July of 1999. Since then research has increased in this sector.
A lot is at stake for allies of the United States and all the
countries on this planet.
1745
A national missile defence system would have enormous
consequences on world strategic stability, and we fear it could
start a new arms race. National missile defence systems are
presently not allowed under the 1972 treaty between the United
States and Russia dealing with restrictions on ballistic missile
defence systems.
This treaty, better known as the ABM treaty, ensures that
United States and Russia stay vulnerable as far as their
respective nuclear weapons are concerned, to dissuade both
countries from using them. The strategic stability ensured by
this treaty also led to other measures regarding the control of
arms and disarmament.
The treaty can be changed, and it has been changed in the past,
but, up to now, Russia has objected to any new changes.
Canada shares the concerns of Americans about new threats to
international and national security, including those resulting
from internal conflict, terrorist attacks, and the proliferation
of mass destruction weapons. We will continue discussing with the
United States about the best way to counter these threats,
through bilateral or multilateral agreements, involvement in
operations promoting peace, diplomacy, or some form of
antimissile defence.
Canada is at the forefront of international efforts to stop the
proliferation of missiles and missile technology. I am thinking
about the missile technology control regime and initiatives
promoting a multilateral standard against proliferation,
especially principles, commitments, confidence building measures,
and incentives that could evolve into a code of conduct.
We wholeheartedly support the resumption of weapons inspections
in Iraq by the UN under the UNMOVIC, and we encourage North
Korea, with which Canada has recently established diplomatic
relations, to abide by the treaty. We also encourage all nations
which have not done so, the United States and China included, to
sign or ratify the treaty on the complete prohibition of nuclear
weapons tests. Such multilateral agreements have an essential
dampening effect on proliferation.
We are concerned about the impact the proposed
national missile defence system would have on strategic stability
and the potential arms race it could lead to, which would
undermine current efforts toward non-proliferation and arms
control.
We are anxious to maintain and reinforce the relationship of
co-operation on issues of security between the U.S. and Russia,
that led to the ratification of the anti-ballistic missile
treaty. We shared our concerns with the U.S. government and urge
them to take all the time they need to seriously consider the
impact their decision to deploy a national missile defence system
would have.
President Bush and his team have clearly stated that they will
keep listening to what we have to say. They made themselves very
clear on at least two issues: first, they do not intend to go
ahead without fully consulting with NATO and their allies;
second, the missile defence system that will ultimately be
deployed will be used to protect not only the United States, but
also their friends and allies. They have also indicated that they
will be consulting with Russia and China. We therefore encourage
Moscow and Beijing to accept the invitation extended by
Washington.
Until the new administration adopts its action plan on a
national missile defence system and all these consultations have
been carried out, it would be premature to take position on the
American initiative.
With respect to participation in research,
development and production activities concerning parts that would
be used in this defence system, missile defence research
activities that Canada is involved in with the United
States, estimated at about $1 million, are primarily aimed at
supporting traditional missions carried out by the Canadian
forces.
All antiballistic missile defence systems do not necessarily
have an impact on global strategic stability. Such systems are
also used to protect troops in operational theatres and are a
major component of defence systems in conflict situations.
The 1994 white paper deals explicitly with this matter; it
emphasizes the importance of the antiballistic missile treaty and
supports research co-operation on missile warning systems and
antiballistic missile defence, provided that the costs of this
co-operation are efficient and affordable, that this research
helps to meet Canadian defence needs and that it builds on
missions already carried out by the Canadian forces. The current
co-operation between Canada and the United States is aimed at
this.
Given the considerations that I have just mentioned in broad
terms, the government cannot support Motion No. 86.
1750
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on the
private member's motion brought forward by the hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas. I know of my colleague's work in the foreign
affairs portfolio. We have served together on the committee
since 1997. The member is an experienced member of the House and
has led many personal crusades, some being very controversial. I
have learned to work with him on an issue by issue basis.
In the House hardworking members bring forward private members'
bills and motions. I appreciate very much their hard work and
the intent behind their bills and motions. The motion today
calls on the government to take whatever measures are necessary
to ensure that Canada does not participate in the research,
development, or production of components for use in the proposed
American national missile defence system.
It is my understanding that America's missile defence system is
still mostly only a part of the imagination or planning of U.S.
military strategists. They think they can do something to
protect North America from a nuclear weapons attack. They are
not yet sure what is possible in this regard, but they have
pledged to the world that they would continue in their tradition
as defenders of the free world to develop a missile defence
system.
My colleague seems to be seeking to shut down all Canadian
consultations and research. He would shut down exports to the
U.S. of technology, wire, aluminum, pencils or anything else that
the Americans might use in their quest to protect North America
from nuclear weapon attacks. I have read the motion carefully.
We have just heard from the hon. member his intention with
respect to the motion, but I am concerned that he is
overreacting.
Let us look into the background of the whole issue. During the
cold war, effective arms control agreements between the U.S. and
the former Soviet Union acted as a deterrent to the Soviet threat
to deploy missiles in western Europe. Though it never went
beyond the theoretical stage, the American strategic defence
initiative, SDI of the 1980s, has been acknowledged as a factor
that forced the Soviets to the arms agreement table. Now, 20
years later, the United States is on the verge of deploying the
national missile defence system, known as the NMD program.
From what little the U.S. has told the world, its current
missile defence system proposal, the NMD, is not as grand in
scope as the SDI. It is more easily deployable, tactically as
opposed to strategically focused and extremely practical. George
W. Bush has made it clear that he endorses the program and plans
to proceed with its implementation. Everyone knows that he would
like Canada to be part of that implementation.
Let us look at the issue strategically. The application of the
NMD is intrinsically tied to North American aerospace defence,
NORAD. It was an alliance forged between Canada and the U.S. in
1958 and has been the focal point of Canada's air defence policy
ever since. With headquarters in Colorado Springs, NORAD is the
most sophisticated air surveillance system on earth and monitors
potential airborne threats to Canada and the U.S. It is in
constant communication with U.S. air force and Canadian air force
units designated as primary NORAD interception units.
Originally tracking stations in Canada along the distant early
warning line, the DEW line, provided primary intelligence but
were replaced by satellites in the 1980s.
1755
Because NORAD remains charged with defending North America's
continental air space the NMD program falls into NORAD's mandate
and the alliance is expecting to be formally tasked with
administering the program. For Canada not to participate in NMD
would be problematic to the joint intelligence, security and
military efforts that NORAD accomplishes.
How could Canada be privy to a portion of the NORAD operation
and be excluded from NMD activities? The tension inherent in
such a relationship could very well cause a serious reappraisal
of the NORAD partnership or indeed an end to the defence
alliance. This potential consequences would be devastating for
Canada.
We cannot protect our airspace, gather the degree and volume of
intelligence currently amassed by NORAD, or provide the air force
training opportunities currently afforded by membership in NORAD.
In the interest of our own defence we should allow the Americans
the opportunity to ask us how, if and when they want us to
participate. Moreover, we should allow them to develop their
efforts to the point of a formal proposal before we condemn them.
I will indicate the reasons the Canadian Alliance believes that
Canada should support and be an early partner in the NMD. The NMD
is a land based system that is easily deployable and relatively
simple in design and scope. It is primarily tactical in scope
and is not viewed as an absolute defence against a massive
missile attack against North America. It is designed to prevent
accidents and aggression from rogue states. It is not a grand
strategic plan that is aimed at eradicating all missile threats
at all times. The NMD will not result in any escalation or
renewal of the arms race.
Therefore arguments that it will nullify the anti-ballistic
missile treaty are specious since the ABM treaty can be amended
at any time. The NMD offers at no cost tremendous security,
intelligence and military benefits to Canada. Like our
membership in NORAD where club dues are basically waived,
participation in the NMD will not have any financial impact upon
Canada. Rather it will enhance, not reduce, Canadian security.
The program will proceed with or without Canadian involvement.
We would be well advised to participate at the ground level in
order to gain the maximum benefits possible. Canadian military
leaders are overwhelmingly committed to the plan, including
Lieutenant General George MacDonald, the deputy commander of
NORAD who sees grave consequences for Canada if we choose not to
participate in the program.
For these reasons we will endorse the plan in principle. We
continue to encourage the government to participate fully in the
NMD and cease its unfortunate habit of alienating our best
friend, closest ally and largest trading partner, the United
States. Canada could only benefit from this far reaching plan.
Canada must see what the NMD system will be once fully developed.
If it is as presented, we must support it and give the U.S. the
benefit of the doubt while it works out options for missile
defence.
In the post-cold war era there is a new, real and growing threat
since the world is confronted with a more diverse, less
predictable and more risk prone group of states armed with
increasingly capable weapons of mass destruction used as tools of
terror, blackmail and aggression.
There is always a risk of an accidental or unauthorized launch
of an existing ballistic missile. Therefore, we as an ally of
the U.S. have a moral imperative to allow the use of all
reasonable tools available to deal with this threat. Missile
defence will be a necessary element of deterrence and an
opportunity for a collective approach to enhancing security for
all.
1800
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too would
like to congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas for
instigating this debate on the space shield. He is a
parliamentarian with a lot of experience. He does not
hesitate to deal with core issues or often to provoke
discussions.
I have to give him the credit for having initiated this debate
on the space shield. This is not the first debate he has
initiated, but this one is particularly important at the present
time. This debate is just a starting point. We will need many
more discussions over this issue.
The space shield is not a new issue. The hon. member
for Burnaby—Douglas had no qualms telling me that when he was
invited to make a speech in the House of Commons Ronald Reagan
quipped that there was a lot of echo in the House of Commons when
some heckling came from the NDP benches.
The position the NDP is taking today does not come as a
surprise. It is consistent with the position it has sustained for
many years.
In those days George Lucas, a great Hollywood producer, was
having a big box office hit with his movie Star Wars. Ronald
Reagan was said to promote a kind of star wars at an
astronomically high cost for the time.
The cost of developing such a system would probably be just as
astronomical today.
What has been done so far? Some testing has been done. In
fact two tests, which were far from being conclusive.
I think the great American pride was somewhat hurt by these
tests because they were far from being conclusive. Finally they
were cut short so the Americans could say “It has been a
success. We have intercepted a missile”. On the contrary, they
missed the mark.
Let us look at the geopolitical issues as well as those
regarding current treaties. Already international powers such as
Russia and China are saying “We are party to a treaty. We often
hear about the anti-ballistic missile or the ABM treaty, but we
will simply withdraw from this treaty because it is our
understanding that the defence system you are putting in place
will give you an offensive capability, with us being unable to
retaliate”.
There are important geopolitical issues to consider. It is
the same thing with the non-proliferation treaty or NPT.
International powers such as Russia and China say they will
withdraw from such treaties, which means we could see a revival
of the arms race.
I will come back to this later, because it is important to
understand the impact on various treaties.
With regard to geographical considerations, it is normal
that Europeans be against this project given the way it has been
designed. By Europeans I mean the European governments. The
private sector, and members will see where I am going with this, has
a totally different point of view since it is aware of all the
potential economic spinoffs this could have.
As far as the U.S. is concerned, this is an election promise
made by its new president, George W. Bush. It is far from being
a done deal. The United States Congress and Senate have yet to
say they agree with this. Need I remind the House that
there is a very small Republican majority in congress and a
one seat Republican majority in the senate. The President of the
United States may have some plan in mind, but he still has to
deal with American democratic and parliamentary entities. As
we can see, it is far from being a sure thing.
I have already spoken at length about Russia and China. They are
totally against this project. The position of Canada is
questionable. The Prime Minister travels to China and says “We
will just have to wait and see how things will go”.
1805
A few weeks later he meets with President Bush and things start
to change. He gets a little mellower and starts opening doors.
The foreign affairs minister says that it is okay as long as there
is consultation and that Russia and China agree, which basically
means that we are against the project. There are somewhat
contradictory indications coming from the government right now.
All that to say that as far as ideology and economy are
concerned, this debate will never be over. I remember I was a
great pacifist and I had problems when we talked about the cruise
missile tests over the Canadian territory. To me, it made no
sense at all, but I had been told “Sure, but from an economic
point of view if contracts are awarded in your constituency
people will not be happy”. It is always the same dynamic.
The member who spoke before me referred to ties with NORAD. We
must bear in mind that the NORAD agreement provides for the joint
defence of the North American territory.
Our economy is so integrated with the American economy and there
is such a large scale integration in our North American
territorial defence policy with the Americans that it seems to me
that it would be very difficult for us to stay out of all this if
the President of the United States were to suddenly convince the
congress and the senate to go ahead.
There would be a problem for us. However, at the moment, the
concept is far from being clear.
I mentioned the inconclusive tests earlier, but what concept will
the Americans put forward? Everybody is waiting to know.
In English we often talk about the national missile defence
program, which is really the American missile defence program, a
program designed only for the United States.
The Americans, having noted the hesitation, are now saying that
it could be a global anti-missile program. What does that mean? I
think Canada being a close neighbour of the United States
would certainly be included. What about European countries?
Could the concept be expanded so that the system would protect
all friendly territories against enemy attacks?
We know nothing about the American concept. Who would be
included in a global program? Should Japan, Europe and Canada be
included? In a strictly national program, the span would be
totally different. The existing concept is one known as balance
of terror.
I have a bit of a problem with arguments like “You know, Iraq
could launch a missile attack on the United States”.
If it launched a single missile aimed at the United States,
Iraq would be wiped from the face of the earth. I fail to
understand how there could be any mistake, with Iraq attacking
the most powerful country in the world with a missile. I also
have a hard time understanding the explanations given by the
Americans.
It is clear the Americans have not totally developed their
concept yet. They are sending trial balloons to see how their
allies will react. Canada has not stated its position either; it
is taking a wait and see approach.
We in the Bloc Quebecois would like to see what is coming, what
concept the Americans want to introduce, before saying we
agree. We do concede, however, as neighbours that from the
economic point of view aerospace and aeronautics are established
industries in Quebec. Obviously we want to wait and see, and
should we decide to support the Americans we will have our say.
At this point, however, I would like to ask the government one
thing. Our colleague has initiated the debate, but if decisions
are to be made the government would have to commit to coming
back to the House of Commons so that there may be a thorough
discussion of the matter.
For the moment we can unfortunately not support the position of
our colleague from Burnaby—Douglas even if we do concede that he
has brought the matter before the House and that the discussion
is far from over.
1810
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this is a very controversial subject and something Canada will
need to deal with as it goes forth. I appreciate the hon. member
for Burnaby—Douglas who has always been able to bring
controversial issues to the House to ensure that they are
discussed. I am sure that is his purpose today.
When I read the motion a thought came to mind. The motion
reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
whatever measures are necessary to ensure that Canada does not
participate in the research, development, or production of
components for use in the proposed American National Missile
Defence System.
I thought perhaps it should be rewritten considering how much I
disagree with it. I thought it would be more appropriate if it
read:
That, in the opinion of this House, we should bury our heads even
deeper in the sand, pretend that the real world does not exist
and refuse to participate in the future.
We are opposition critics. I respect the member for
Burnaby—Douglas and I know he worded the motion in such a way as
to create controversy and generate debate, which he has done. I
believe that as opposition critics we should put some thought
into these issues and make sure we have the information before we
blindly criticize. That is the point we are at now. We are
still gathering information.
This is law in the U.S. It will happen, but it will only happen
as part of a more involved system of defence from foreign
missiles, be they rogue missiles or missiles from other
countries. The United States has a tri-level plan to prevent
missiles from harming its country and this will be only a part of
it.
It is not nuclear. It is not spaced based. It is not star
wars. It is not a whole lot of things that some people think it
is. However we still do not know a lot about it. We are
gathering information, and more and more information is becoming
available all the time.
Surely we should not say that we will not listen, that we will
not look at it, that we will not consider it or that we will not
allow our young people and scientists and technical people to
participate in it. We cannot blindly say no and rule it out. In
that way I believe the motion is wrongly placed. It is not
applicable, it is not practical and it is not appropriate.
As I have said, it is law in the U.S. The Americans will
proceed with it, but they have not invited Canada to participate.
They have sent messages that they would perhaps like us to
participate, but they have not invited us to participate at any
senior level. It is totally an American initiative.
It will involve a great deal of technology and research, and a
lot of the technology and research will bridge over from missile
defence to the civilian industry. It would be wrong to rule it
out without considering the impact on the civilian aerospace
industry, which is huge in Canada and has enjoyed a $25 billion
surplus over the last 10 years.
To blindly refuse it without any basis in fact, without knowing
anything about it, without knowing what the issues are and
without even considering the impact on Canada is wrong in the
opinion of members the Conservative Party.
Our entire aerospace industry is almost all export driven. It
is a key component of our export business and of our entire
economy. We cannot allow it to be threatened by a blind
decision. To say that we do not want anything to do with it no
matter what, that we do not want to listen or participate or hear
anything about it, is definitely wrong.
The aerospace industry in Canada employs 60,000 people and those
people could be very much a part of it. If it is in our interest
we could play a key role in helping to develop the program.
Again, if we say we are not interested in even listening or
talking about it, the whole program and its benefits to Canada
are doomed.
Earlier I said that the national missile defence system is not
star wars. It is not a nuclear system. It is not even a spaced
based system. It is a smaller, downgraded system from the star
wars proposal. It appears very practical at first look and
certainly we will be analyzing it as it goes forward.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Where is Brian Mulroney when we need
him?
Mr. Bill Casey: Good question. The Russians have
something like 3,500 missiles they could launch on us. This
system will involve perhaps 100 or 200 when it is fully
implemented.
It is not possible to consider this part of a nuclear missile
system or anything like it. It is a small system that will have
a lot of practical use and may also have benefits to Canada as
far as economic development goes.
1815
Our position, which we are developing now, although we need to
get more information, is that we think Canada could use this
opportunity as a bargaining tool to encourage the United States
government and the Russians to enter into more strategic arms
talks to reduce nuclear arms more than they are reducing them
now. We are down to approximately 3,000 to 3,500 missiles per
side. Perhaps we could use this opportunity to get them to start
anti-ballistic missile talks, START talks, to try to get them to
agree to a level of maybe 1,000 or 1,500 as a condition of being
involved with this program. We will be presenting that position
to the government when we get more information on the exact
details of the proposal.
In summary, we are not widely opposed to this. Our minds are
open and we want to base our decisions on the facts when they
become available. When that happens, we will base our decision
on facts. In the meantime, we are going to encourage the
government to use this as a bargaining tool to try to really do
something positive in the missile defence system and the
anti-missile defence talks because there is an opportunity now to
do that.
Our position is that of having an open mind. I would have to
say that we are leaning in favour of it because of the tremendous
benefits from technology, from training and from experience. To
just say that we are not going to be involved with any of this
will turn the brain drain into the brain train.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate this
evening. I want to congratulate my colleague from
Burnaby—Douglas for introducing the motion and launching a very
important debate around the sheer madness of Canada being
associated in any way, shape or form with the proposed U.S.
national missile defence system.
Before I get to the position of the government or, I guess more
accurately, the non-position of the government, I want to just
say a word or two about what I have heard from the other parties
in the debate this evening.
I suppose it is not surprising that we hear from the Alliance
the same usual knee-jerk, uncritical embracing of American
defence initiatives. According to the Alliance, we want to
Americanize our political system, Americanize our economy and
certainly Americanize our health care system and our education
system. Why would anybody be surprised at the Alliance's
commitment to further throw in our lot with American defence
initiatives, no matter how mad and irresponsible they really are?
I have to say I was somewhat more disappointed and frankly
surprised at what I heard from the Bloc member who essentially
said “Actually, I tend to be a bit of a pacifist myself but gee,
what can you do? It is going to happen anyway”. Besides, said
the member, there might be some economic advantages to us if we
get in on this madness that has been condemned from every corner
of the world.
Again, I am not entirely surprised. Maybe it underscores the
basis for some reuniting of the Alliance and Tory interests here.
Essentially, we have an uncritical view coming from the Tory
Party as well, which I think is disappointing and really an
abandonment of what one has from time to time seen of a more
enlightened nature from this party on similar issues in the past.
I want to turn now to the government's position or, as I say,
non-position. What is that position? Essentially the government
claims that it does not yet know enough to take a position. What
is it about the government that it is so committed to sitting
squarely and firmly on the picket fence on an issue such as this
one, which cries out for leadership? The excuse given is that
the government does not really know enough yet or that it does
not really know whether the technology is going to work. For the
love of God, what does this mean?
1820
Why is it that the German defence minister was absolutely
unequivocal in stating that Germany was not prepared to be part
of what essentially becomes the dismantling of the international
architecture of arms control? That is the implication of going
ahead with the national missile defence system. It has been
recognized that what will absolutely go up in smoke is the 1972
anti-ballistic missile treaty. That is the architecture.
I know some have said that it is sort of an old treaty since it
is from 1972, but we heard the member for Burnaby—Douglas remind
us again that as recently as May 2000, I believe, 187 countries,
including, by the way, the U.S. and Russia, all acknowledged that
we have to build on that anti-ballistic missile treaty in order
to move forward with meaningful disarmament.
What is it that makes it impossible for the government to take a
moral stand here when we see, for example, that the prime
minister of Italy had no difficulty in saying that he had enough
information? He was persuaded on the basis of what we know: that
the NMD poses a risk to the indivisibility of NATO. In February,
the French president, Jacques Chirac, said very clearly that the
NMD cannot fail to relaunch the arms race in the world.
How much more do we need to know than that every major peace
group in the world and major research bodies have clearly taken a
stand that this is madness? We used to have a tradition in this
country. We had a deserved reputation for taking leadership in
such matters. What happened to the Pearsonian tradition? What
happened such that Canada is willing to cower and to hide out
from taking leadership on something that literally threatens to
relaunch a major arms race in the world and threatens the future
of peace and security worldwide?
I appeal to those members who are sort of playing around with
this as if it were star wars. I have to say that one of the
difficulties with the image, which was made to stick to the
Reagan era but is now out there as a sort of questionable
description of what the NMB would mean for the future of the
human race, is that we now have a whole generation of young
people, and actually I think the whole Canadian population, who
actually think that star wars is something that is just in the
movies. It has a kind of positive notion about it. There is
nothing positive about a proposal of the U.S.A. to relaunch
nuclear proliferation and to relaunch a massive arms race,
because once the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty goes up in
smoke, then we are talking about a free-for-all. We simply have
to re-establish Canada as a leader in these matters. The
government has congratulated itself, with good reason, for taking
some leadership on the issue of landmines.
Let me make this my final point. Surely if government members
will not listen to the pleas of opposition members, major
scientists, other leaders and peace activists around the world,
would they not be willing to listen to the pleadings of the
former minister of international affairs in the government, the
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, who now has thrown off the shackles of being
part of the madness of this Liberal government? He is prepared
to take a stand and say that we must not be part of this madness.
I appeal to members to listen to that message.
1825
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I thank all of those who participated in this debate. In
particular, of course, I thank my colleague, the leader of the
New Democratic Party, the member for Halifax, for her comments.
I must say I was very saddened to note that spokespersons from
each of the other parties all spoke out in opposition to this
motion.
[Translation]
Frankly I was astonished by the position expressed by the
spokesperson for the Bloc Quebecois. He has said very clearly
that the space shield exists and that Quebec wants to profit from
contracts arising out of Canada-U.S. co-operation.
What is going on with members of the Bloc Quebecois? In the past they were
occasionally the voice of progress, but now they are speaking out
in support of the spate shield because of the profits it will
bring? This is truly shameful and unacceptable.
I recall that in the past they also supported France's nuclear
testing. I presume that was for the same reason.
[English]
It is very interesting to note that two weeks ago today the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, speaking from Brussels, said that
there was some urgency to the community of nations making their
views known with respect to the proposed national missile defence
system. He said in an interview from a NATO meeting:
I think the message there is that those of us who feel we should
influence what comes out ought to be talking to them now.
He went on to say:
I think they are very much at the stage now of really putting
their facts together and deciding what their plans are and what
their options are and now is the time for their allies to
indicate what their concerns or interests may be.
For heaven's sake, that is exactly what we are appealing to the
government to do. It should get off the fence, as the leader of
my party said, and make our views known now clearly and
unequivocally to our allies that this is unacceptable.
We have heard talk about NORAD and Canada's involvement in
NORAD. I sometimes wonder when I hear this talk whether this is
not the desperate pleas of the generals and the arms
manufacturers to allow them to continue their jobs.
What is the enemy? Surely to goodness the real enemies that we
should be confronting are the enemies of environmental
destruction, of poverty, of homelessness and of injustice, not
these theoretical enemies that NORAD has created to try to
counter. That is why we have said that Canada should be
strengthening our position within the United Nations and not
working within this absurd and outdated framework.
My colleague referred to the words of the former Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy. I want to refer to the very
eloquent words of a member of the House of long standing, the
member for Davenport, who spoke out very recently in opposition
to the national missile defence and appealed to his own
government to take a stand.
He talked about the fact that this so-called rogue state
scenario was in fact ludicrous. He said that this absurd
hypothesis omitted the fact that none of these states had nuclear
weapons nor long range missiles, that these countries were very
poor, and that their leaders did not want to provoke retaliation.
Moreover, experts agreed that terrorist attacks, weapons stuffed
in briefcases or trailer trucks, posed a greater danger to
national security than ballistic rockets.
I appeal to the members on the government side to listen to
their colleague from Davenport who has pleaded with his
government to say no, to take a clear stand now.
Medical students in British Columbia have just launched a
campaign called www.bombsaway.ca, appealing to the government to
speak out against missile defence. They said the nuclear arms
race is one of the greatest threats to global health and
security.
New Democrats strongly support the attempts to try to convince
the government to say no to NMD and to say yes to the abolition
of all weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired. The
motion was not selected as a votable item and is therefore
dropped from the order paper.
[English]
I have also been informed that there will be no proceedings on
the motion to adjourn the House this evening.
[Translation]
It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)