36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 113
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 13, 2000
 | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Bob Wood |
| FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-38. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
| Bill C-489. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1010
| PETITIONS
|
| Health
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Gasoline Prices
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Alternative Energy
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Bill C-20
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Gasoline Prices
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Pay Equity
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1015
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Health Care
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| The Senate
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1020
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-18. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| Motion in Amendment
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Motion No. 1
|
1025
1030
| Mr. John Maloney |
1035
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1040
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1045
1050
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1055
1100
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
| CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND WAR CRIMES ACT
|
| Bill C-19. Third reading
|
| Hon. Raymond Chan |
1105
1110
1115
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1120
1125
1130
1135
1140
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1145
1150
1155
1200
1205
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1210
1215
1220
1225
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1230
1235
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Mr. André Bachand |
1240
1245
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1250
1255
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1300
1305
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
1310
1315
1320
1325
| Division on motion deferred
|
| CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Third reading
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1330
1335
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1340
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1345
1350
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE LATE GILLES LANDRY
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| NATIONAL PARKS
|
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
| CANADA WORLD YOUTH EXCHANGE PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
1400
| SYRIA
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| BOMBARDIER
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| REGIONAL PRIDE WEEK
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1405
| JOB CREATION
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| IMPAIRED DRIVING
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| MEMBER FOR LAC-SAINT-LOUIS
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| JASON ARNOTT
|
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1410
| NOTE FESTIVAL
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| CANADIAN NURSES ASSOCIATION
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| CANADIAN EXECUTIVE SERVICE ORGANIZATION
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| GOVERNMENT SPENDING
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| POVERTY
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| BANKS
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| BANKING
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| BANKING
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1440
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| GUN REGISTRY
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1445
| PORT OF MONTREAL
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
| FIREARMS
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| BANKS
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1450
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| STATUS OF WOMEN
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1455
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. John Manley |
1500
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1505
| CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Third reading
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1510
1515
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1520
1525
1530
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1535
1540
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1545
1550
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1555
1600
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1605
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1610
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Division on motion deferred
|
| SPECIES AT RISK ACT
|
| Bill C-33. Second reading
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1615
1620
1625
1630
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1635
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1640
1645
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1650
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1655
1700
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1705
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1710
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-37. Second reading
|
1750
(Division 1355)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INTERNATIONAL CIRCUMPOLAR COMMUNITY
|
| Motion
|
1800
(Division 1356)
| Amendment negatived
|
1805
1815
(Division 1357)
| Motion negatived
|
| TREATIES ACT
|
| Bill C-214. Second reading
|
1825
(Division 1358)
| Motion negatived
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Third reading
|
1830
(Division 1359)
| Motion agreed to
|
| SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-24. Third reading
|
(Division 1360)
| Motion agreed to
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-18. Report stage
|
1835
(Division 1361)
| Motion negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
(Division 1362)
| Motion agreed to
|
| CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
|
| Bill C-19. Third reading
|
(Division 1363)
| Motion agreed to
|
| CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Third reading
|
(Division 1364)
| Motion agreed to
|
1840
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Bill C-297. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Third reading
|
1845
1850
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1855
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1900
1905
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1910
1915
1920
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1925
1930
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1935
1940
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-37. Committee of the whole
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1945
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1950
1955
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
| Mr. Rob Anders |
2030
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
2035
| Hon. Don Boudria |
2040
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
2045
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Third reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
2050
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
2055
2100
2105
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
2110
2115
2120
2125
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
2130
2135
2140
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
2145
2150
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
2155
| Mr. Bill Casey |
2200
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
2205
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
2210
2215
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
2220
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
2225
| Mr. John Herron |
2230
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Mr. John Herron |
2235
2240
2245
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
2250
2255
2300
| Mr. Jay Hill |
2305
2310
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
2315
2320
2325
2330
| Mr. Mark Muise |
2335
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| Mr. John Herron |
2340
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
2345
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
2350
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
2355
| Division on motion deferred
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 113
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, June 13, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to 12 petitions.
* * *
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
also pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of
order in council appointments recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bob Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans
Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
the 1999-2000 annual report of the Department of National Defence
and the Canadian Forces Ombudsman.
* * *
FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-38, an act to establish the
Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and to amend certain acts in
relation to financial institutions.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-489, an act to
amend the Access to Information Act (cabinet confidences).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in June 1999 the government used the
provision for total exclusion of cabinet confidences under
section 69 of the Access to Information Act to keep 172 pages of
gun registry budget information a state secret.
In September the government used the cabinet confidences
exclusion again to hide from the public a 115 page report on the
economic impact of the gun registry. That was enough for me and
I knew the law had to be changed.
The purpose of this bill is to make certain amendments to the
act as recommended by the information commissioner in his 1996
report, The Access to Information Act and the Cabinet
Confidences: A Discussion of New Approaches. The information
commissioner was kind enough to recommend changes to an earlier
draft of this bill.
1010
This bill makes cabinet confidences mandatory exemptions as
opposed to exclusions. This results in the withholding of
information and documents that are considered cabinet confidences
being subject to the independent review under the act, rather
than the entire act being inapplicable to them. The bill also
excludes from the exemption documents that refer to but do not
reveal the substance of cabinet confidences.
Among other safeguards, this bill would require that requests
for cabinet confidences be handled only by officers who have
received the appropriate security clearance.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
HEALTH
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure today to rise in the House and present over 600
signatures from my community of Dartmouth.
The people of Dartmouth are concerned that the Liberals have
ignored the top priority of Canadians in the 2000 budget by
giving only 2% for health care, and that the federal government
is now only paying 13.5% of the health care costs leading to
shortages of nurses, hospital beds and emergency spaces in our
hospitals.
The people of Dartmouth want to see an immediate injection of
federal money back into our health care system bringing it up to
25% of funding immediately, and also, to implement home care
programs and a national program for prescription drugs. They
want to stop for profit hospitals and federal funding restored
for health care.
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am tabling in the House today a petition
signed by 5,400 constituents in the riding of Charlevoix.
Given that the proposed change to the limits of the economic
region for employment insurance purposes in the federal riding
of Charlevoix would have dreadful consequences for the affected
population, and that this proposal does not follow the
employment insurance regulations on the homogeneity of the work
market and the bordering regions,
the petitioners call on the Parliament to maintain the status
quo, so that the riding of Charlevoix can still be part of the
former administrative region of northern Quebec.
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the privilege to present two petitions.
The first one deals with the predatory pricing of gasoline. The
petitioners are from Beauport, Quebec City, Sainte-Émilie,
Saint-Émile, Sainte-Foy, Charlesbourg, Saint-Lambert and
Victoriaville.
Since Canadians consumers cannot take action and protect
themselves against increases in gasoline prices, the petitioners
are calling on parliament to pass a resolution to stop world oil
cartels in order to bring down excessive prices of crude oil.
The second petition is from the region of Fleurimont,
Sherbrooke, Lac-Racine, Saint-Denis-de-Brompton, Saint-Pamphile and
Saint-Marcel.
The petitioners call on the House of Commons to find a solution
and to pass a resolution to stop world oil cartels in order to
bring down excessive prices of crude oil to counter the
predatory pricing of gasoline in Quebec and in Canada.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table
a petition signed by constituents from the riding of Shefford
who are asking the government to quickly introduce and implement
legislation that would make the labeling of GMOs and foods
containing GMOs mandatory in all cases.
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to table in the House today a petition from
constituents of my riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.
The petitioners call on parliament to allocate sufficient funds
to research into alternative energy sources so that, in the near
future, Canadians would no longer be forced to turn to oil as a
main energy source.
BILL C-20
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since the session is almost over, I would like to table a series
of five petitions on different issues.
A first petition containing about 125 signatures was sent to me
on Bill C-20. The petitioners wish for the withdrawal of this
bill.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to table a petition containing about one hundred
names and dealing with drinking and driving.
The petitioners call on the government to amend the Criminal
Code to toughen up the law.
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to table a petition on collective bargaining by
rural route mail couriers.
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to table a petition containing about 200
signatures. The petitioners condemn the excessive gasoline
prices.
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to table a petition containing about 50 signatures
from petitioners asking for pay equity for all workers.
I wanted to do my duty as a member of parliament by presenting
these petitions from my fellow citizens.
1015
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
present this petition on behalf of some 30 citizens of the
riding of Champlain, asking parliament to enact a legislation
making mandatory the labeling of all food products which are
genetically modified in whole or in part.
I take this opportunity to underline the excellent work of our
colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert, on the issue of GMOs.
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions signed by hundreds
of constituents and people from all over Manitoba. They are very
concerned about the state of our health care system and the lack
of action on the part of the Liberal government to address the
crisis that has now befallen our universal public health care
system.
The sentiments of the petitioners were given some validity
yesterday with the results of the byelection in Alberta where
voters overwhelmingly said yes to the NDP and no to bill 11. The
petitions that I table today say the same thing, that we should
stop the cutbacks to health care, stand up against bill 11, save
the Canadian public health care system, and stop the slide toward
a two tier American style health care system in Canada.
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present this petition urging the House of Commons to
take a stand in order to bring an end to the dizzying increases
in the price of gasoline.
The report on Radio-Canada, last night, proves without any doubt
that the major refineries in Canada are abusing their monopoly
position.
Therefore, it is my privilege to table this petition signed by a
great number of citizens of the town of Thetford and the
surrounding area.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to submit the
following petition, signed by 381 citizens from Quebec, in
particular from the riding of Verchères—Les-Patriotes, which I
have the honour and the pleasure to represent in this House.
The petitioners point out first that it is impossible for
consumers to protect themselves against the dizzying increases
in the price of gasoline at the pump. They also point out that
they are a captive clientele for oil products, since no
alternative source of energy is presently available at a
reasonable price.
Therefore, the petitioners urge parliament, as a first step, to
pass a resolution to put an end to the actions of world
petroleum cartels and, as a consequence, bring down the
excessive prices of gasoline.
Finally, the petitioners ask parliament to invest sufficient
money in research on alternative sources of energy, so that
consumers will no be longer dependent on oil as their main
source of energy.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the same
vein, I would like to table a petition signed by hundreds of
Quebecers asking that Parliament take action in order to counter
excessive gas pricing.
Among other things, those Quebecers ask that adequate funding be
allocated to research into alternative energy sources so that,
in the near future, Canadians are no longer forced to turn to
oil as a main energy source.
[English]
THE SENATE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition to present which was sent to me by
people in Brandon, Manitoba, and a few folks in Weyburn,
Saskatchewan. They ask the House to abolish the unelected
Senate.
They say that the Senate is undemocratic, unelected, not
accountable, costs Canadian taxpayers around $50 million per
year, and undermines the authority of members of parliament.
Therefore they ask us to begin the process of abolishing the
Senate. Of course that is supported by my friend, the Liberal
member from New Brunswick.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1020
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-18, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving causing death and
other matters), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There is one motion in amendment
listed in the notice paper at report stage of Bill C-18.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on.
I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.
MOTION IN AMENDMENT
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
She said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to make
the government realize that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to
Bill C-18. This bill will increase the maximum penalty for
impaired driving causing death from 14 years to life
imprisonment.
The Bloc Quebecois feels that the 14 year sentence currently
provided under the Criminal Code is adequate and reflects the
seriousness of the offence.
We are simply proposing to delete clause 2 of this bill, which
changes the penalty for that crime.
Bill C-18 gives us an opportunity to reflect on the
appropriateness of a jail sentence. In doing so, we must first
ask ourselves about the needs of the victim, of the offender and
of the community once a crime has been committed.
Victims need to express what they went through and to receive
compensation for the harm caused to them. They also need to have
their rights upheld.
Offenders, on the other hand, need to understand their actions
and to take responsibility for them. They should be given the
opportunity to explain their action to the victim and also to
change their behaviour.
The community also has needs that must be met. Those needs are
more abstract, but they are just as important.
The community wants to be protected from crimes. Sometimes, a
token bid of restitution is necessary to repair the harm caused
to the community. Doing community work is a good example of a
measure that makes up for the prejudice caused by the offender
to the community.
Are these needs met by imposing a jail sentence? I am tempted to
say that they are not entirely met under the existing system and
that they are sometimes not met at all.
The main reason for this situation is that the system pays more
attention to the fact that a criminal act is perceived as a
violation of a law, rather than as an action that causes a
prejudice to the victim and to the community.
Within this view of criminal justice we are seeking to punish
the offender instead of trying to remedy the harm he has done to
the victim.
The preferred way of punishing criminals these days seems to be
imprisonment. We are stuck in our present approach for
determining sentences and the reason we are is that we have no
other means for responding to the needs of the community, the
victim and the perpetrator.
The Bloc Quebecois does not see any way in which increasing to
life imprisonment the 14 year sentence for impaired driving
causing death can meet the needs of the community, the victim
and the perpetrator.
The message the Bloc Quebecois is attempting to deliver here is
not that imprisonment must never be used.
We know that, under certain circumstances, there is no other
solution but imprisonment to meet the needs of victims and the
community.
The criminal code provides a maximum sentence of 14
years for impaired driving causing death, and we do not feel
that increasing this to a life sentence will do anything more
than punish for the sake of punishment.
As we have said on a number of occasions, the rate of
imprisonment in Canada is the highest of all democratic
countries in the west, with the exception of the United States.
It has, moreover, been proven that not only do incarceration
rates and sentence lengths do nothing to improve the rate of
recidivism and the crime rate in general, but they sometimes
have the opposite effect, and make it worse.
Nevertheless, we continue to incarcerate people and the federal
prison population is increasing at a rate that points to a 50%
rise within the next 10 years.
1025
The adult correctional system cost some $2 billion in 1992.
It cost about $52,000 a year to keep one offender in prison,
whereas it would have cost $10,000 to supervise an offender in
the community. Where are we going with Bill C-18?
The minister is not addressing the problems coherently and is
proposing a simplistic solution to the scourge of impaired
driving.
I would like to conclude with an example to illustrate my
remarks. I refer to the case of Kevin Hollinsky of Windsor,
Ontario. The events of which date back to 1994.
This young man went with friends, as many adolescents will do,
to a bar in downtown Windsor. On his way back, at the wheel of
his 1985 Firebird, he and his friends tried to catch the
attention of a group of girls in another car. Kevin Hollinsky
was driving too fast and lost control of his car in a dangerous
curve.
The consequences of these acrobatics were disastrous. Two of
Kevin's friends died in the accident, two others were injured.
Kevin himself was not hurt.
He pleaded guilty to two counts of dangerous driving causing
death. For dissuasion purposes, the crown prosecutor sought a
sentence of 8 to 14 months imprisonment, in order to teach a
lesson to other young drivers.
Local police who worked on the case felt that a very clear
message needed to be sent that impaired driving causing death
would carry a jail sentence.
Kevin did not go to jail. This was because of the
extraordinary actions of the parents of the two boys who were
killed and a courageous and innovative judge, who dared to hand
down a community service sentence instead.
Here is what was decided. With the co-operation of the Windsor
police, a program was set up whereby Kevin would visit schools
with what remained of his car to speak to students about the
events of that tragic evening.
Kevin Hollinsky was sentenced to 750 hours of community service
and met with 8,300 students in the course of this innovative
program.
For anyone doubtful about the effectiveness of this sentence, I
should mention that, during the summer following Kevin's
presentations, no secondary school students were involved in any
serious or fatal car collisions in the counties of Windsor or
Essex.
A secondary school principal told the police that he was sure
that this initiative would save lives. During his 30-year career
as a teacher, he had never heard a talk that had such a
powerful impact on students.
Admittedly the dissuasive effect would not have been the same if
young Kevin had been given a jail sentence.
This case was appealed by the crown prosecutor. Let us not
forget that the appeal courts have established that a jail
sentence is appropriate in almost all cases of death resulting
from a highway accident caused by gross negligence.
In November 1995, after deliberating half an hour, three appeal
court judges confirmed the initial sentence.
There are many people who have committed a serious crime for
which jail is not necessary and could even be ineffective for
the offender and for the real needs of the community. That is
why the Bloc Quebecois is vigorously opposed to Bill C-18 and is
proposing that clause 2 simply be dropped from the bill.
I urge all members of the House to reflect on the consequences
of tougher sentences for impaired driving offences. I hope that
the example I have given will convince them to support the Bloc
Quebecois amendment.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wonder if I could ask for the indulgence of the House to revert
to routine business to allow me to present a unanimous committee
report from the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert
to presentation of reports from committees?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1030
[Translation]
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to Bill C-18.
The bill before us today is in part the product of the work done
by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
[English]
The standing committee tabled its report “Toward Eliminating
Impaired Driving” on May 25, 1999, one year ago. The committee
appended to that report a draft bill that the government followed
very closely when it introduced Bill C-82 on June 7, 1999.
At the time of introduction, Bill C-82 included a provision that
would have increased the maximum penalty for impaired driving
causing death from 14 years imprisonment to life imprisonment.
This provision was removed from Bill C-82 and then placed in Bill
C-87. As amended, Bill C-82 passed and came into force on July
1, 1999. Bill C-87 died on the order paper.
In October 1999 during this current session, the government
tabled its response to the committee report on impaired driving.
The government response indicated the intention to reintroduce
the provision found in Bill C-87 that would increase the maximum
penalty for impaired driving causing death to life imprisonment.
In December 1999 the government introduced Bill C-18 which
includes the provision relating to impaired driving causing
death.
Raising the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death
will indicate that this crime is viewed with the same seriousness
as manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death, which also
carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. I remind the House
that the maximum penalty is reserved for the worst offender and
the worst set of circumstances.
Earlier this year the Supreme Court of Canada handed down a
unanimous decision in the Proulx appeal. In the course of its
reasons the court noted that:
—dangerous driving and impaired driving may be offences for
which harsh penalties plausibly provide general deterrence.
These crimes are often committed by otherwise law-abiding
persons, with good employment records and families. Arguably,
such persons are the ones most likely to be deterred by the
threat of severe penalties.
To the extent that penalties deter, the amendment would help in
the battle against impaired driving. The increased penalty would
also be valuable for its denunciation of impaired driving causing
death.
Bill C-18 also includes, as promised in the government response
to the committee's report, a provision that was recommended by
the committee but not included in the draft bill. This provision
would amend section 256 of the criminal code by adding drugs as a
basis to seek a warrant to obtain a blood sample.
This section currently allows a peace officer to apply for a
warrant to obtain a blood sample from a driver based on alcohol
consumption in certain circumstances. The peace officer must
reasonably believe that the driver, within the previous four
hours, was involved as a result of the consumption of alcohol in
an accident resulting in injury or death. Also, it must be the
opinion of a qualified medical practitioner that the driver is
unable to consent to the taking of a blood sample and that taking
the sample would not endanger the life or health of the person.
It is anticipated that situations where police will seek a
warrant for a blood sample based upon drug consumption will be
relatively few and that these would involve illegal drugs or the
abuse of legal drugs.
With the impaired driving causing death provision and with the
blood sample provision, the government will have acted upon each
of the recommendations for a specific criminal code amendment
contained in the standing committee's report “Toward Eliminating
Impaired Driving”.
Bill C-18 includes two other amendments. It would change the
French version of the definition of a motor vehicle to indicate
that these are vehicles moved otherwise than by muscular power.
The English version does not have this problem.
Finally, Bill C-18 would delete the offence of driving while
prohibited from the list of indictable offences that are within
the absolute jurisdiction of a provincial court judge under
section 553 of the criminal code. Bill C-82 of the previous
session raised the maximum penalty for driving while prohibited
from two years imprisonment to five years imprisonment. The
charter of rights requires that an accused be given the right to
a jury trial for an offence that carries a maximum penalty of
five years imprisonment or more. The amendment in Bill C-18 will
bring section 553 into compliance with the charter.
I am pleased that we have seen progress over the past dozen
years in reducing the fatalities involving impaired driving.
However, there is yet much distance on the road that lies ahead
of us on our journey to eliminate impaired driving. Legislation
alone will not eliminate impaired driving. I think we can agree
that continued efforts by governments, public and private
organizations, and families and individuals are required to
eliminate impaired driving.
1035
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in
support of Bill C-18. It should be clear that the Canadian
Alliance has been supportive of this process from the very
beginning going back to Bill C-82 as well as Bill C-18. These
government bills came about because of a supply day motion
introduced by the then Reform Party, the official opposition of
Canada, back in 1998. Of course we support it and we commend the
government for finally getting to the stage where we have the
complete package together.
I want to speak for just a moment in opposition to the motion
put forward by the Bloc. Through the different stages of this
bill, including report stage, we have seen that the Bloc members
basically have a different attitude toward those people in our
society who would drink and drive. We firmly believe that this
must be regarded by the Criminal Code of Canada and by parliament
as a criminal offence because that is clearly what it is. It is
not simply a social ill as the Bloc would have us believe; it is
a serious criminal offence. Approximately 1,500 deaths a year in
Canada and in excess of 80,000 injuries are a direct result of
irresponsible unthinking people who would choose to drive their
vehicles while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. I am
happy the drug aspect has been introduced into taking of blood
samples and the process that is involved.
Bill C-18 and clause 2, which the Bloc seeks to have removed, is
not about the Kevin Hollinskys of this world and the Bloc member
knows it. She knows that all through the committee stage we
clearly discussed that the extension of the maximum sentence to
give the judges more latitude was designed specifically to be
used in the case where there are serious and aggravating factors
involved in the offence.
We are not talking about the Kevin Hollinskys of the world, but
about hard core offenders who have shown by their actions that
they care nothing about the safety of society. They care nothing
about the laws of the country. They care nothing about
responsibility and on occasion after occasion have gotten into
their automobiles while they were impaired, caused an accident
and been arrested. If it was not the ultimate accident which
resulted in the death of someone, they injured someone. While
being under suspension and under the influence, they go out
driving again, get caught and get some other sentence. Then they
get out and are caught again driving while under suspension. We
are talking about the incorrigible offenders. That was made very
clear during all the discussions we had on Bill C-18.
We are talking about the incorrigible offenders who simply
refuse to listen to the law. As a result, they make themselves a
menace and a danger to society by their actions. They get behind
the wheel of an automobile and pose a serious threat to everyone
else on the roads. When they kill somebody, it is because they
have not taken the responsibility. They have not recognized the
law. They have not recognized the danger they have put the rest
of society in.
1040
They are clearly the type of person that for the sake of the
safety of society and even for the sake of the safety of their
own lives, should be sent to prison at the judge's discretion for
a maximum life term. It removes them from the highways. It
removes their irresponsible acts from the highways. It removes
their menace from our highways. It protects society. That is
what we are trying to do.
We strongly oppose the Bloc amendment. First of all, it is
presented in the wrong vein. It is presented using an example
such as Kevin Hollinsky which is clearly not the intent of Bill
C-18 or clause 2.
We enthusiastically support Bill C-18. We commend the
government for dealing with this. Mr. Speaker, you cannot
imagine how it tears my heart to commend the government on a
government bill but it is deserved. I am sure the government
will return that praise to our party for introducing it in the
first place as a supply day motion. We support the bill and hope
for its quick passage.
In closing, I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the
House, to delete the coming into force section of the bill in
clause 5 which reads:
I would like to ask for the unanimous consent to delete this so
as to allow the bill to take effect immediately upon royal
assent.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to propose this amendment?
An hon. member: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise
in the House today to discuss the concern that is on the minds of
every Canadian when it comes to safety on our roads and highways.
Before I start my preamble today, I would like to give a warm
welcome to all those veterans and legion members who descended
upon Halifax for the 38th Dominion convention. They had a
wonderful parade on Sunday in the pouring rain. It was great to
see Haligonians come out in pride to say thank you to the
veterans and to the legion members for the continuing great work
they do on behalf of our elderly veterans across the country. We
are going to give a special tip of the salt and pepper cap to all
those people across the country.
Also, I am wearing my tall ships pin today. I invite all
members of parliament, their staff, anyone in the viewing
audience and in Ottawa to come on down to Halifax between July 19
and 24 to witness the greatest gathering of tall ships in the
history of our country, a great mariner nation.
Back to the subject at hand, when it comes to impaired driving,
I do not think there is one Canadian or one parliamentarian who
would not agree that this is something that we should not even be
discussing in the new millennium. Impaired driving is a scourge
and a curse in our society. Through proper education and
enforcement hopefully we can reduce it or eradicate it
completely. However, it does absolutely no good to put in all
the toughest regulations possible if there is not proper
enforcement.
Many communities in my riding never see a police officer for
days. I am sure it is the same right across the country in the
rural parts of the nation. The cuts to the RCMP and to
provincial and municipal police forces have really put our roads
in jeopardy not only in terms of impaired drivers but unsafe
drivers right across the country.
If we are going to eradicate this problem and save lives, we
must encourage the federal government and all provincial
governments to reinvest in our law enforcement officers so they
can have not only the proper safety checks on the road,
roadblocks and everything else at New Year's and on special
holidays but throughout the year.
Spot checks are a great way of deterring the general public from
drinking and driving.
1045
Another problem is the lack of public transportation. There is
absolutely no excuse for someone to drink and drive. Absolutely
no excuse at all. In many cases an individual may have a bit too
much to drink and because there is no access to public
transportation, or quick access to it, that may encourage the
individual, albeit not rightly of course, to think that because
they cannot get a ride home and a cab is too expensive they will
chance it and drive. We have to take that type of thinking away
from the people who patron our taverns, bars and lounges, or who
drink in their homes or their neighbours' homes. We have to
encourage them to use public transportation or hire a cab if they
are going to have a few drinks.
I have to give credit to the Brewers' Association of Canada.
Over the last few years it has been very proactive in encouraging
its customers who drink spirits, wines and beers to drink
responsibly. Kudos go to that association for taking the lead
approach in that regard, but there is much more it could do. It
could start by putting voluntary labelling on bottles. Or, if it
refuses to do that voluntarily, it could become mandatory that
labelling be put on beer bottles, liquor bottles and so on to
encourage people not to drink and drive. That is my personal
point of view.
We have quite graphic advertising planned for cigarettes and I
believe we should have the same on liquor bottles. I do not
necessarily mean pictures, but a warning saying “Please do not
drink and drive”. That would go a long way in encouraging
people to understand that when they drink, getting into a vehicle
is the worst thing they could possibly do.
MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, is a wonderful association
which reaches across this country. It deserves all kinds of
kudos. I would go so far as to say that the individuals involved
with MADD deserve the Order of Canada for all the great work they
do in bringing this issue to the attention of all members of
parliament and all legislatures across Canada. This organization
brings awareness to this very terrible aspect of our society.
Statistically it is true that impaired driving charges have
decreased through proper education and through efforts of
organizations like MADD and the Brewers' Association of Canada.
Those organizations encourage and educate all people in our
society to not drink and drive. However, it still happens and
there are many more things we could do.
Our enforcement people need adequate resources. We have heard
enough excuses about budgetary cuts. If someone dies because of
budgetary cuts, why the hell were those cuts made in the first
place? There is a cause and effect to budgetary restraints and
cuts. I am not saying we should operate on deficits for the sake
of operating on deficits, but if essential services like policing
are cut in Canada that will have an effect on road safety. We
have many concerns about home invasion in rural communities. We
also have problems with carjackings, drugs coming into Canada
through our ports, poor morale in the RCMP and the municipal and
provincial police forces, which are a direct cause of the cuts
these departments have had to face.
All of the police officers I have met love to do what they do.
They love to serve their country in their capacity as law
enforcement officers. Unfortunately, the support they receive
from the federal and provincial governments is not adequate.
That has to change. I believe if we can change the thinking of
all governments at all levels and work co-operatively together
with law enforcement agencies we could reduce drunk driving. It
is difficult to control 31 million people and their individual
behaviour, but we could reduce drinking and driving even more.
It is most unfortunate that the member for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley was unable to get unanimous consent to
have this legislation passed quickly. As the House knows, we
will be rising possibly this Friday or next week. I would
encourage this government and all members of parliament to put
aside their political differences and move to quickly pass this
bill. It would be the right thing to do. We must do everything
we can to protect our children, our families and anybody visiting
Canada who travels on our highways and byways, regardless of
which political party we belong to.
I encourage all members of parliament to support this initiative
and to do it quickly so that we can protect lives on our streets
in Canada.
1050
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to take part in
the debate, which everyone is aware focuses on a motion that is
now before the House to essentially remove a subsection of the
criminal code, which is before us within Bill C-18. The proposed
subsection arrived back here, and I would suggest it is arguably
the most important part of much needed and anticipated
legislation pertaining to impaired driving.
The proposed subsection would replace subsection 255(3) of the
criminal code with the following:
(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph 253(a) and
thereby causes the death of any other person is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
This bill is very much aimed at the emphasis and putting forward
parity in the criminal code with respect to individuals who
embark on this type of reckless behaviour that results in threats
to life and limb. We have seen repeatedly the carnage on the
highways that is the end result of impaired driving. This is a
criminal code change that would address that particular problem
in a direct way.
The Conservative Party of Canada was very encouraged when the
government and all other opposition parties, with the exception
of the Bloc, finally came around to support Bill C-18.
We know that last year there was capitulation on the part of
other parties when the government agreed to take this proposed
subsection out at the urging of the Bloc Quebecois. Members of
our party were very tough with this particular item and insisted
that it remain, and we did receive personal assurances from the
Minister of Justice that this bill would be reintroduced as a
stand-alone. I want to acknowledge and commend the minister for
following through on her word. Sadly, we have not seen her
ability to deliver Bill C-3, the new youth criminal justice act,
with the same level of efficiency, or timeliness.
Bill C-82 was the original bill from which this proposed
subsection was deleted. It was because our party was insistent
on it being reintroduced that we see it here today. After that
long period of delay, it is encouraging. The timing, of course,
is very important. With the summer months now upon us,
graduations coming up, with more and more people on the highways
headed to cottages and to the shore, impaired driving sadly is a
threat to all individuals on the highways. This bill would send
a proper message of deterrence, both general and specific
deterrence, for those who are foolhardy enough to embark on
impaired driving and jeopardize other's lives in a very serious
way.
All members of the committee will recall, and I certainly
recall, working closely with members of Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, who have been very much in support of changes to toughen
up our legislation pertaining to impaired driving, and this
subsection in particular was one upon which they were insistent.
The life imprisonment provision does send the message of
deterrence that we seek to send. I want to personally thank
members of MADD for their consistent support for legislative
change, and this bill in particular.
I also want to acknowledge the contribution of all members of
the justice committee for enabling this legislation to make
it through the committee, and to do so quickly. Now that we have
the amendment at report stage, although I know the Bloc Quebecois
may be opposed to this provision, I do commend and acknowledge
its commitment to exercising its right to oppose and to its
participation in the debate.
I hope the report stage will not be delayed any further,
particularly with respect to this important legislation, with the
timetable we have and the likelihood that parliament will wrap up
this week.
I spoke earlier of the summer vacations that our now upon us.
There are many families and individuals across the country who
will be on the roads, and needlessly impaired drivers could cause
fatalities and absolute horrific carnage to individual lives.
The hard-core drinkers who continue to embark on this exercise
of drinking and driving, getting behind the wheel and endangering
Canadian lives, is exactly the type of individual who this bill
addresses.
The message that drinking and driving will not be tolerated in
that form and fashion is one that we wish to send from this place
forward.
From day one the Conservative Party stressed this as a
priority. The government has acknowledged that by bringing it
forward today.
It is high time that we put emphasis on the protection of human
lives and the needless tragedies and loss of life that we see on
the roads and highways throughout the country. They are a
testament to the need and to the void that existed prior to this
bill coming into effect.
1055
During the original debate of Bill C-82 we were very worried
when other parties softened their position with respect to the
life imprisonment aspect of the bill. This was done, many will
recall, in exchange for speedy passage through the House, but now
we have come full circle and we are seeing the inclusion of this
important provision.
The bill is now before us in a separate form, but it very much
complements and works with the previous legislative changes that
took place in the last session. This will improve the bill and
will give police further powers and the courts the further
ability to mete out sentences that are more indicative and more
reflective of the serious type of negligent behaviour that is
encompassed by impaired drivers.
Bill C-3 was another important bill that we would have liked to
have seen come through, as I mentioned earlier, but that has not
happened. However, we do embrace this bill and support it
wholeheartedly.
The Conservative Party has been adamant all along that the
provision of life imprisonment be reinstated and that judges be
allowed greater leeway, greater discretion to reflect public
outrage and public sentiment about the seriousness of taking
another's life through an automotive accident where alcohol is
involved.
Tragically, many people have experienced an impaired driving
accident. There are few Canadians who have not been touched by
the tragedy of an impaired driving accident. Careless actions
and careless behaviour of drivers when it involves alcohol have
to be treated with the same type of response that we see in other
actions that are reflected in the criminal code.
Criminal offences involving drunk drivers declined by 23%
between 1994 and 1997, but we do know that there are staggering
numbers who are not caught and continue to drive under the
influence. It is hoped that through the efforts of all present
we will have this legislation before the Canadian people. It
will benefit all in the country and send a message of deterrence
that is so important in changing and refocusing the attitudes
toward this criminal behaviour.
That is very much a part of this exercise. Putting forward a
more vehement message of deterrence, emphasizing that this is
behaviour that will not be tolerated, emphasizing that this is
the type of behaviour that will warrant serious criminal
sanctions up to life imprisonment, will help to send that message
out.
If and when Bill C-18 passes, the Liberal government should not
rest on its laurels, for certainly it and all governments should
continue their fight against impaired driving. Many suggest that
we should be lowering alcohol levels even further, some to a zero
tolerance level. There was lengthy discussion of other ways to
approach the problem of impaired driving, so the fight is not
over and there is more to be done.
Ontario and Alberta are two provinces that have been at the
forefront in bringing forward legislative changes and putting in
place provincial statutes to address this problem. Provincial
statistics show that more than 300 people were killed in drunk
driving related accidents in the year 1997. In Ontario there is
a legislative initiative that if caught three times for impaired
driving a lifetime suspension will follow.
We know that fines have been increased. Judges now have the
ability to impose sanctions with respect to the use of driver
interlock systems, which is an innovative technical advance that
will allow a person convicted of impaired driving to continue
driving if they comply and take full responsibility for the cost
of installation.
It is time for the government to follow the lead of some of the
provinces that are moving in that direction. Innocent victims
who are killed as a result of thoughtlessness and selfishness on
the part of impaired drivers have to be addressed in a serious
way. The federal government has an opportunity to send the
message that drinking and driving will not be tolerated. Bill
C-18 is a step in that direction.
This legislative initiative, as I said, complements legislation
that was brought in in the last session, legislation that
expanded the window of time that police have to take samples up
to three hours. The legislation also strictly enforced the .08
blood alcohol concentration level and made effective amendments
to help police in the performance of their duties. Surveys
indicate that it takes police officers on average two hours and
48 minutes to process criminal code charges involving impaired
driving. Therefore, there is a greater need for a streamlined
approach to the way in which impaired drivers are handled by the
police.
Physical sobriety tests and passive alcohol sensors will also
help the police in their important task.
1100
As well, we know there is a need to fill another gaping hole in
the criminal code as it pertains to impairment by drugs, which is
not as easy to detect as alcohol. The province of British
Columbia has taken very innovative steps in training police
officers to be able to recognize the impairment symptoms brought
about by the use of drugs.
Police do their very best, and I commend all officers and those
involved in the criminal justice system, but they are often
frustrated by the fact that technicalities result in cases being
thrown out of court on many occasions. Police are still denied
the right to demand an automatic breath or blood sample from
those involved in accidents.
I just wanted to indicate that there is more that can be done. I
believe education plays a big part in that. Part of this debate
will hopefully educate the public in that regard.
Parliament has put aside its partisan attitudes on this level.
We are glad to see this legislation come in. Graduations are
coming up and we hope that all students will embark on a very
safe, alcohol free graduation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Accordingly the vote
stands deferred.
* * *
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND WAR CRIMES ACT
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes
against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute
of the International Criminal Court, and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on December 10, 1999, Human Rights Day,
our Minister of Foreign Affairs tabled Bill C-19, the crimes
against humanity and war crimes act.
This legislation will implement in Canada the Rome statute of
the international criminal court and strengthen the foundation
for criminal prosecutions in Canada.
The bill is now in its final stages. I would like to take this
opportunity to recognize the very important work done by members
of the standing committee and the many witnesses who contributed
to the examination of this bill.
Bill C-19 brings Canadian law into line with the Rome statute
which was adopted by delegates of the Rome Diplomatic Conference
in July 1998. Once 60 countries have ratified this treaty, a
permanent international criminal court will be created in the
Hague which will try individuals accused of committing the most
heinous crimes known to humanity.
There are already 97 countries which are signatories to the
statute, 12 of which have already ratified. The 12 ratifications
represent a doubling in number since the introduction of this
bill in the House.
1105
This progress is excellent, and It is especially encouraging to
note that the most recent country to ratify was France, which did
so last Friday. France's ratification is of particular
significance as its government was initially quite opposed to the
international criminal court. This demonstrates the momentum
that is occurring worldwide for this initiative.
The creation of the court is a revolutionary progression in the
struggle for universal peace. Many individual Canadians have
fought diligently at every step to ensure that the ICC would
become a reality. In particular, I would like to highlight the
contribution made by Ambassador Philippe Kirsch who chaired the
negotiations in Rome and was assisted by a committed team of
Canadian officials. They have demonstrated tremendous leadership
in bringing the nations of the world together on an extremely
complex issue. In this same spirit, many other Canadians have
acted as leaders at the non-governmental level to ensure that
every individual in the global community is able to live in an
environment of peace and security.
The opportunity for Canadians to be leaders in ensuring that the
international criminal court is made a reality has not, however,
ended. Rather, Canadians must remain vigilant and demonstrate
resolve in our efforts to make the ICC a success at every stage.
For the moment, we as parliamentarians must play our part in the
implementation of the Rome statute. The importance of Canada
ratifying the Rome statute cannot be overstated. A common theme
that echoes throughout parliamentary committee hearings came from
NGO representatives who stressed that it was of importance not
only to Canadians but to the global community that Canada ratify
the Rome statute as soon as possible.
There are two reasons why Amnesty International, Human Rights
Watch, Rights and Democracy, Women's Caucus for Gender Justice
and other esteemed organizations continuously stressed the need
for Canada to quickly act.
The first reason is that most countries prefer to follow rather
than lead. Many countries are hesitant to ratify the statute
because many countries that normally take the lead on such issues
have themselves not yet ratified. Our ratification of the
statute will place Canada in its familiar role of leadership in
the national arena. We must demonstrate this leadership as
atrocities continue to be committed throughout the world. It is
incumbent that we exert every effort to bring the ICC into being
as soon as possible.
The human rights NGOs also stated that it was imperative that
Canada ratify the statute because the proposed crimes against
humanity and war crimes act is the first comprehensive
implementing legislation to be developed by any country. The
Canadian legislation has been heralded by NGOs as model
legislation that will be studied and borrowed from by other
countries throughout the world.
I would now like to focus for a moment on the committee stage
which, under the direction of the hon. member for Toronto
Centre—Rosedale, the chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade, was thorough and comprehensive.
The enlightened debate that took place at the committee meetings
between parliamentarians and witnesses representing a wide
variety of interests, has ensured that Bill C-19 is well crafted
and that it meets the needs of all Canadians.
Many amendments have been made to Bill C-19 as a result of the
suggestions that were put forward by NGOs and committee members.
I would now like to highlight some of these amendments.
1110
The crimes against humanity and war crimes act has been amended
to ensure that Canada will be able to fully prosecute individuals
who commit mass murder, rape, torture or any other similar
heinous crimes against humanity. The customary international law
definitions of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
will now be recognized inside Canada.
Canada's ability to assert universal jurisdiction for these
crimes has also been streamlined and simplified. Now, as long as
the person accused of the crime is found in Canada, they will
fall under our jurisdiction, regardless of when or where the
crime took place. This change ensures that those who have
committed or who commit in the future the most egregious crimes
will not find a safe haven in Canada.
I would also like to ensure that one issue raised by some NGOs
at committee stage is fully clarified. Much trouble has been
caused by the words direct and indirect which appear in the Rome
statute but not in the corresponding article in the Geneva
Conventions section on transfers of population. I want to
reassure the House that the preparatory commission in New York
has resolved the problem, agreeable to all, by adding a footnote
which essentially reaffirms that the provision has the same
effect as the corresponding offence in the Geneva Conventions,
ratified by Canada and implemented by parliament twice.
The fundamental importance of the ICC is that it will ensure
that individuals who persist in committing shocking violations
against the global community will be held accountable for their
actions.
It is sad that humanity can make so many advances in knowledge,
in the sciences, in technology and in so many other areas, yet
peace has always eluded the world. The world has never known a
period when war did not rage somewhere.
The 20th century in fact, despite our progress, has been the
bloodiest century known to humanity. The violence that we have
known this century has been so unparalleled that the word
genocide itself had to be created to denote the level of violence
that had previously been unknown.
In this century we have seen far too many peoples targeted and
murdered en masse simply because of who they were. All too often
those who perpetrated the violence have escaped justice. The ICC
will ensure that the Stalins, the Hitlers and the Pol Pots of the
world will never again be able to act with such impunity. The
ICC will be the permanent, independent institution which will
serve humanity blindly and ensure that the 21st century will be
one in which universal accountability is demanded and protected.
The international community must show resolve in continuing to
push countries to ratify the Rome statute. The situation in
Sierra Leone is an unfortunate illustration of the immediate need
for the ICC. It is also useful as serving as an example of how
the ICC will serve the interests of Canadians in doing our part
in promoting the values which we hold dear to our hearts.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has done tremendous work in the
promotion of human security. Human security puts the needs of
people first, and the situation in Sierra Leone illustrates how
the ICC can promote the rights of individuals throughout the
world.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has been making great efforts to
promote awareness on the issue of war affected children. Many of
us have seen the images of small children wielding weapons that
were bigger than they were. Children as young as nine in some
conflicts are routinely drugged and sent out as cannon fodder to
benefit and protect cowardly warlords.
1115
To take advantage of children in this manner is beyond
unconscionable. It is outrageous and it cannot be tolerated by
individuals who consider themselves to be civilized. The ICC,
once established, will provide the global community with the
mechanism to go after the individuals who turn children into
killers by providing within the Rome statute that it is a crime
against humanity to employ children in warfare.
Sadly the image of children brandishing guns is not the most
horrific to emerge from Sierra Leone. Instead it is the image of
children as well as those of countless men and women who have had
their limbs hacked off that is more enduring. It is perhaps this
image of small children with stumps where their hands once were
that best exemplifies why the world needs a permanent court to
hold the individuals who perpetrate these acts accountable before
the world.
The ICC will ensure that the climate of impunity that has been
tolerated for centuries will be replaced by a culture of
accountability. The court's creation will send a strong signal
to all corners of the world that the international community will
no longer stand idly by while innocent persons are massacred.
Criminals will no longer be able to stand behind borders safe
from prosecution. They will instead answer for their crimes.
The act and the ICC will also ensure that those who aid in
committing these crimes or who profit from these crimes will have
to likewise answer for their actions.
The situation in Sierra Leone, for example, has been financed by
the trade in diamonds. Without the trade in diamonds there would
be no guns. Canadian diamond companies have acted responsibly in
Sierra Leone. Yet there are companies from other countries
operating in Sierra Leone that have provided the people who hack
off children's hands with the money to commit these crimes.
Legislation such as this act will help ensure that these
companies, like the perpetrators themselves, will be held
accountable for their actions.
It is also important that it be made clear the ICC will be a
neutral, non-politicized court whose prosecutors and judges will
meet the highest professional standards and will be elected by an
assembly of state parties. It is worth citing the excellent work
done by Madam Louise Arbour who served as the chief prosecutor on
the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Madam Arbour, who now serves Canadians as a supreme court
justice, demonstrated the level of professionalism, integrity and
commitment to justice that we can expect to see from those who
will perform similar functions for the international criminal
court.
Canadians have long demonstrated the intellectual and moral
courage to play a leadership role in promoting peace and security
for all of humanity. I praise those Canadians who have
ceaselessly contributed to ensuring that the rule of law is
extended throughout the world to all persons irrespective of who
they are. I hope we as parliamentarians, as representatives of
the Canadian people, can continue to demonstrate the commitment
of Canadians to ensuring that mass murderers, rapists, those who
mutilate children and all war criminals will never again escape
justice.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the statement by the secretary of
state with interest. Now I rise on behalf of the Canadian
Alliance as the official opposition chief critic for foreign
affairs to deliver our final answer to the government's proposed
Bill C-19 that will fulfil Canada's obligations in the
establishment of the international criminal court.
In my 40 minute speech in early April I highlighted our position.
This bill and the code will deal with cases of genocide, crimes
against humanity and war crimes.
1120
Canadians support this effort. We want the perpetrators of
these heinous crimes to be brought to justice. We support the
codification of the crimes that this legislation formally
creates. We understand that no nation stands alone in the global
arena. We must work with other countries in assisting and
ensuring that criminals, those monsters who have blood on their
hands, are held responsible and accountable for their crimes and
that justice is served. This is a very important justice issue.
Criminals must be brought to account.
On behalf of the official opposition I extend an hearty thanks
and acknowledgement for the hard work done by everyone, including
members of the foreign affairs committee and particularly the
witnesses appearing before it. I acknowledge the work of the
clerk of the committee, the legislative counsel assisting us with
the amendments to the bill, and the government's lawyers who are
to be congratulated for working very diligently under short time
constraints and succeeding in terms of helping the government
with the bill.
I also extend my thanks to my legislative assistant, Dan
Wallace; the staff of the Canadian Alliance; and the member of
parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands who during my absence on a
trip to China helped the committee to proceed with the bill's
amendments.
The Canadian Alliance and many of the witnesses appearing before
the committee hearings on Bill C-19 went to great lengths to hold
the flashlight for the Liberals in order to help them do a good
job. It is unfortunate that the government's treatment of the
bill cannot be helped. The Prime Minister and Minister of
Foreign Affairs have proceeded with this legislation in a
perfunctory manner. By that I mean there are many outstanding
issues in the international community concerning the
international criminal code. The Liberals know this but still
they have gone ahead with this legislation.
The bill was substantially amended by the foreign affairs
committee. Even so, many unanswered questions remain concerning
the effects of Canada fulfilling our obligations under the ICC.
The international community is currently negotiating many of
these concerns as we speak. In their haste the Liberals have
placed the cart before the horse by having parliament pass
legislation before definitions, procedures and other details have
been decided. All Canadians want the interests of the victims of
these crimes to be addressed and justice to be done with respect
to heinous crimes that too often go unpunished. This is a step
in the right direction, the creating of an international judicial
system which declares that no one including the heads of state is
above the law.
An amendment of the Canadian Alliance was put forward at
committee to make sure that the Liberals would include
prosecuting heads of state. That was not clear in the original
bill, Bill C-19, that was introduced before the committee
hearings.
1125
The ICC rules of procedure and evidence, including the
definition of terms such as aggression, conditions of
imprisonment, judicial protocol and many others need to be
clearly defined. In addition we are concerned about the
proliferation of the United Nations bureaucracy when temporary ad
hoc human rights tribunals such as the international tribunals
for Bosnia and Rwanda will suffice to deal with these crimes on a
case by case basis.
The advantage of an ad hoc tribunal is that it can be dismantled
when its work is done and no permanent bureaucracy is created.
Until the international community reaches agreement on these
kinds of ICC related details we believe this is a superior
option.
The Canadian Alliance supports the principles and the idea
behind the Rome statute providing the means for prosecution of
war crimes. The Rome statute is a document that initiates the
ICC. Canada's ratification of the Rome statute is the genesis of
Bill C-19. Our ratification of the Rome statute is not due until
December 2000.
There are certain questions which still remain unanswered. Why
has the government insisted on passing the bill this week when
the House is recessing? Why not wait until the important
meetings concerning the ICC have been held by the international
community when we will have more information available to decide
on? Why not wait until the definitions and rules of the ICC have
been decided by the international community? When we know the
rules of the game it will be easier to play the game, but when
the rules of the game have not been decided how can we think of
going into the field and playing?
Yesterday the United Nations began three weeks of meetings
concerning the ICC, but today the House will have finished debate
on this matter. The matter will be closed after today. This is
a travesty of democracy. Bill C-19 requires Canadians to support
something that is still under negotiation by the international
community. It is premature.
The Liberal government is extremely negligent in failing to seek
approval for Canada's position from parliament. Instead
parliament is being treated as a rubber stamp for negotiations
carried out with input from unelected lobby groups but with no
input from elected representatives of Canadians. Canadians are
forced to watch from the sidelines as the Liberals sign and
implement yet another international agreement. We have seen this
pattern too often. It was quite evident when we went to the
Kyoto, Rio, Cairo and Beijing conventions.
The Liberals are used to going to conventions without doing
their homework and in the back seat of the bus writing the
policy, the terms and the conditions of their position. Then
they present us with a fait accompli. This is a disgrace to
Canada's democratic institutions and the spirit of openness and
accountability which Canadians deserve.
The legislation remains unfinished business. Whether or not the
government passes it, it will remain unfinished business. I
wonder sometimes if the Prime Minister is forcing his own
political agenda on Canadians and our international allies. Is
he causing the premature passage of this bill so that he is free
to call an election in the fall without worrying whether Canada
has ratified the creation of the ICC by December 1?
That would be irresponsible and negligent. It is a very
important bill, a very important treaty and we need to scrutinize
it carefully.
1130
Witness after witness who appeared before the foreign affairs
committee on this bill warned the Liberals that they should not
be passing such an important bill with such serious ramifications
for the free world unless it was foolproof and ironclad. This
bill is full of holes and it is largely undefined. Everyone
knows that this is not a secret.
The committee heard witness after witness testify to a litany of
problems with the bill, yet the Prime Minister is forcing the
country to take the risks of passing legislation that may see our
own Canadian forces personnel prosecuted and punished because the
government passed legislation before it knew what the law was
about.
However, I do not believe that. I feel that we will be here
next September until probably December, and that is when this
work should have been done. This bill needed to wait until at
least September in order for elected representatives in the House
to take into consideration the most recent possible developments
in the international negotiations concerning the ICC.
If necessary, the new Canadian Alliance government would have
passed this bill before the December deadline. In fact, I would
recommend that an alliance government would repeal Bill C-19 so
that the work that needs to be done actually gets done.
The ramifications of the bill are not going to disappear for
some time. There is work to be done once the decisions
concerning procedures, evidence and the definitions are finalized
by the international community. That is when this bill should
come before the House.
The Canadian Alliance delivered 20 amendments to the bill at
committee stage. I would like to highlight a few of those
amendments so that members of the House, as well as viewers, can
see it from our perspective.
We proposed an amendment calling for the Rome statute to be
appended to the bill. That is the practice parliament followed
with the Geneva Convention on the Laws of War and Protocols I and
II to the conventions. That is also the practice parliament
followed with the North American Free Trade Agreement. Why does
it not want to do that in this case?
We also proposed to amend the interpretation clause of the bill
by adding a clause declaring “notwithstanding anything this act,
Canada's national sovereignty is to be protected”.
In another amendment, we proposed adding two lines ensuring
“international law is not to be permitted to supersede Canadian
law”.
These amendments were needed because it was not even clear in
the bill that Canada's sovereignty would be protected and that
Canadian law would remain supreme.
The Canadian Alliance also received numerous representations
from Canadians who maintained that it violated the rule of law to
create retroactivity. This would have the effect of convicting
an individual in an uncontested manner. We proposed an amendment
that said “nothing in this act should cause Canadian courts to
treat crimes allegedly committed outside of Canada
retroactively”.
We tried to help the government with its bill. We proposed
adding the contents of subsection 21(2) of the criminal code to
the bill. This useful section of the criminal code should be
Bill C-19.
1135
Subsection 21(2) reads:
Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry
out an unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any
one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an
offence, each of them who knew or ought to have known that the
commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of
carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence.
In the committee's discussions with the lawyers we were assured
that the Criminal Code of Canada would be applied if need be.
The bill had two definitions of war crimes and crimes against
humanity: one definition, if the crimes are committed in Canada;
and the other, if the crimes are committed abroad. We proposed
one definition: no matter where the crimes are committed. How
can we have two definitions of crime whether it is committed in
Canada or abroad? It is a matter of common sense. The
government had its own amendment which took care of that.
Another amendment ensured that the accused had to intend
inhumanity and know that the act was inhumane without using the
word inhumane. The bill needs to state what the mental element
is for the crimes. There is such a statement in the Rome
statute, article 30. The problem Cory J. posed in Finta said
that an accused had to intend inhumanity, that the trial judge
was right in saying that the accused must know that his act was
inhumane, is not addressed.
Mr. Justice Cory in the case of R v Finta said:
It seems that the (war crimes) section was passed to bring to
trial those who inflicted death and cruel suffering in a knowing,
pre-meditated, calculated way. The essential quality of a war
crime or a crime against humanity is that the accused must be
aware of or wilfully blind to the fact that he or she is
inflicting untold misery on his victims. The requisite mental
element of a war crime or a crime against humanity should be
based on a subjective test.
The Canadian Alliance proposed another amendment making it clear
that non-state actors and heads of state can be prosecuted for
genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This is not
clear in the bill. We proposed an amendment to add the contents
of section 21(2) of the criminal code to the bill.
The current criminal code provision 7(3.77) was not to be found
in the bill. We called for it to be included, but I will not go
into the details.
We proposed many other amendments. The Canadian Alliance forced
these issues to be dealt with by the government. We proposed an
amendment preventing pardon without trial. We proposed an
amendment that would exclude the defence of superior orders.
This could not be done as it was already provided for under
Canadian law.
We also proposed an amendment that would have the effect of
establishing that the judge should decide whether the order was
manifestly unlawful.
Finally, we proposed another amendment obliging the government
to table documents concerning the negotiations taking place to
decide rules of evidence and certain definitions for the ICC.
Surprisingly, Liberal backbenchers also offered amendments to
Bill C-19. Everyone tried to fix this bill but it is still
broken. It could have been divided into two: One bill for the
ICC and the other for the codification of the crimes. This would
have helped. It at least was going in the right direction.
This bill is full of holes and may threaten our national
security. The United States of America is adopting strong
legislation to deal with suspected war criminals and perpetrators
of these crimes. This may cause suspected criminals to use
Canada as their hideout.
1140
We are concerned that these suspects will try to join with
organized crime and people smuggler brethren already in Canada.
Those undesirables are already here because of the Liberal
government's lax money laundering and illicit drug laws, and its
flawed and broken immigration and refugee system.
By the time the international community has completed work on
the ICC, the Liberals will have long forgotten about it. The
Liberals will think they have washed their hands of it.
At the report stage last Friday, the House was forced to
consider nine amendments from the Bloc Quebecois, which was a
waste of the government's time. The Liberals were surprised to
see those amendments. The submission of the amendments was a
denial of the work by the foreign affairs committee. By the time
the report stage arrived, everyone knew that as many changes as
possible were completed. There was no more work to be done on
Bill C-19 and its state of incompletion could not be corrected.
Until more developments take place in terms of the international
community's work on the bill, where negotiations are taking
place, everyone knows that the government has moved as far it is
going to move. That was about three hours of wasted time at
report stage.
In conclusion, on behalf of right thinking Canadians who believe
in getting the job done, doing a good job and doing things right,
I will work to save taxpayers' money. I will not waste any more
of the House's time on this bill because the taxpayers are paying
for this.
The Canadian public expected the government to do a good job in
satisfying Canadian obligations under an international criminal
court. They trusted this government to properly enact the crimes
against humanity, genocide and other war crimes, but it has not
done that. It has again disappointed Canadians, like so many
other badly managed federal government responsibilities, such as
tax relief, criminal justice, youth criminal justice system,
health care, HRDC, gas prices, brain drain, and the list goes on.
This is work that has not been done or done badly.
The Canadian Alliance supports Canada withholding our full
acceptance until parliament has ratified the rules of procedure
and evidence for the ICC. These rules will not be ready for some
months. The government should have waited before proceeding with
Bill C-19.
Canadian negotiators met with the foreign affairs committee
approximately one week before their departure to Rome. Upon
cross-examination at committee, the officials said that they did
not know what the details of the agreement might be. They did
not know what it might cost. They did not think that any major
offending countries would sign it. They did not think the
Americans would sign it. They could not answer questions about
the make-up of the court at that time. Above all, they would
sign the agreement without knowing all these things. This is
what has happened. It is not new. They have done it again and
again, and that is wrong.
The Canadian Alliance will hold the Liberals responsible by
voting against Bill C-19. It is too bad. I hope there will be
an election soon.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise here this morning to speak to third reading of Bill C-19.
The full title of this bill is an act respecting genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to make
consequential amendments to other acts.
1145
The short title of this bill is Crimes Against Humanity Act. I
was looking for the bill's title at report stage, because I
wanted to point out the spirit of the committee's deliberations.
It transcended partisan divisions.
I would therefore point out that thanks to a Bloc Quebecois
amendment, the short title reads Crimes Against Humanity and War
Crimes Act. It is our understanding that genocide is a crime
against humanity.
Although we would have liked the bill to be even more
progressive and to give Canadian courts broader international
jurisdiction, we will vote for it with enthusiasm.
This bill is the stone Canada is adding to the international
edifice that will be the international criminal court once 60
countries have ratified the statute of Rome. What point have we
reached today? I believe that 12 countries have ratified it so
far. So we need another 48 to make the 60.
I know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Government of
Canada and senior public servants, who worked with international
officials to draft the statute of Rome first and then Bill C-19,
were in a hurry, just like the NGOs that came before us to say
how it was urgent for Canada to pass this bill.
Despite this context, we wanted the committee to work as
responsibly as possible. I have to say that it did and that we
reached an honourable conclusion, even though it is not quite as
we would like it.
Canada is therefore adding its stone.
As soon as the bill is passed by the Senate, Canada will become
the 13th, 14th or 15th signatory. I must point out that we are
still far from having 60 countries. All those who support this
initiative are hoping that it will not take years, as is the
case with some conventions, before getting the required number
of countries for the Rome Statute to reach its full potential
with the establishment of the International Criminal Court.
Bill C-19 does not only seek to have this international court in
place some day, with the powers provided under the Rome Statute.
It also means that, until then, Canada will have the authority
to try criminals who committed crimes under the definition
provided in the Rome statute, not the letter but the spirit of
that statute.
1150
After consultation—and we agreed with that proposal—we ensured
that the definitions would be exactly the same for the
implementation of the Rome statute and for trying criminals in
Canada under the criminal code.
I will read these definitions because they give the exact
measure of what the Canadian courts will deal with when they
have the mandate to do so, and what the international criminal
court will tackle.
These definitions are as follows:
“crime against humanity” means murder, extermination,
enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, sexual
violence, persecution or any other inhumane act or omission that
is committed against any civilian population or any identifiable
group and that, at the time and in the place of its commission,
constitutes a crime against humanity according to customary
international law or conventional international law or by virtue
of its being criminal according to the general principles of law
recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it
constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and
in the place of its commission.
“war crime” means an act...committed during an armed conflict
that, at the time and in the place of its commission,
constitutes a war crime according to customary international law
or conventional international law applicable to armed conflicts,
whether of not it constitutes a contravention of the law in
force at the time and in the place of its commission.
A country could not use the argument that a person accused and
prosecuted under the applicable conventional international law
had the right to say “But that is not the law of my country”.
This is why there is international law and an international
criminal court.
In the definitions given in the bill we read the following:
“genocide” means an act or omission committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, an identifiable group of persons,
as such, that, at the time and in the place of its commission,
constitutes genocide according to customary international law or
conventional international law or by virtue of its being
criminal according to the general principles of law recognized
by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a
contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place
of its commission.
For Canada, implementation of the Rome Statute marks the
beginning of the realization of a dream. That dream is one of
justice that cannot be less than international, because it is a
justice that cannot be blocked by the rank, the power or the
wealth of those who it is felt must be prosecuted under
customary international law by this International Criminal
Court.
The Rome Statute marks the realization of a dream.
The definitive realization of that dream will be ratification of
the Rome Statute, or almost so, for there are still some
obstacles to that realization.
Until now, the acts or omissions
covered by the three definitions were viewed, with amazement,
horror or sometimes admiration, within the country concerned or
elsewhere, as the expression of a relationship of power within
humankind, whose cruelty seems to know no limits. Consequently,
the only thing that could be used against that force was another
force, either the force of numbers, in the case of democracy, or
the force of arms against another country, and this would mean
war.
1155
This marks a turning point in world history, a desire to break
with relationships of force alone, both within and between
countries. Obstacles lie ahead however. The Rome statute must
be ratified by 60 countries, and we hope that we will have those
signatures soon. But there will be other obstacles.
Naturally, the court does not have jurisdiction over non-member
countries, although, through the UN Security Council, the
court's investigator is empowered to investigate anywhere at all
and to lay charges.
But there will understandably be wrestling matches with a number
of countries.
We know that we have not reached the end of the road yet. But
at least we have the emergence of a tool that could, to a
certain degree, ensure that justice is done.
Our troubles are not over yet, however, because once a highly
placed criminal is brought before the criminal court, evidence
and witnesses will still have to be produced. The case of the
international court established for Rwanda shows only too
clearly how difficult it is, when charges are laid against the
leader of a country or a member of a victorious organization, to
come up with witnesses, because they might find themselves in
situations beyond the control of the court or of other countries
should they return to their own country.
That is all I will say for now about the many obstacles we face.
I am not going to dwell either on the scepticism some feel about
this court, and who have said “Will the existence of this court
not cause dictators to do all they can to remain in power as
long as possible or to create some pretence of justice or an
international court in their own countries?”
I will avoid this scepticism in order to point out just how
much, like other major international movements in support of
human rights, which have enabled the international community to
create mechanisms that, unfortunately, often go unheeded,
because they are not used enough or because it is tempting, in
certain circumstances, to forget or ignore them.
However, this great desire for international justice will begin
to take shape in each of the member countries and, we hope, in
every country, with a little pressure.
1200
This means of course that each of these countries is a
democracy. We know that the record of these countries is less
than great and that the trends we are seeing now in the former
Soviet Union, in many African countries and even in South
America, and in other major countries as well, cause us some
concern.
I note—I am not making a direct link between the two, although
sometimes I wonder—that the United States' desire to be exempt
from the application of decisions by the international criminal
court does not please many countries.
The fact that the United States did not want any criminal to be
tried without Security Council concurrence, which means a veto
by the U.S. and other countries, did not please democrats and
those wishing to see justice throughout the world.
In other words, Bill C-19 is but the first step in a lengthy
process, which must be built not only on justice but also on
democracy. This will be a lengthy process, because democracy
cannot take root in countries where hunger is rampant and there
is governmental corruption because it is so easy to be corrupt.
I know many share my concern about this.
Bill C-19 is also going to transform the landscape of Canadian
justice in a way.
In future, the courts will no longer be unable to follow up on
their jurisdiction, as some felt had occurred in the Finta case.
From now on, Canada and Canadian courts will be able to
prosecute criminals accused of crimes against humanity, genocide
or war crimes.
What we find regrettable is that the accused will have to either
be Canadians or have perpetrated their crimes against Canadians.
This universal jurisdiction Canada assumes is not, therefore,
the broader universal jurisdiction which we would have liked to
have seen and which other countries, such as Belgium, and Spain,
have assumed. This is regretful. We do, however, take note
that the witnesses before the committee have said that Canada
could, at a later date, extend that jurisdiction.
While there is general support for the bill, we felt it would be
appropriate to submit these amendments, not to delay the
proceedings, but to say before the House and to put it on record
that there is still work to be done. It may be that, at some
future stage, surely because of the pressure by NGOs—certain
events may occur—that position will become mandatory for Canada.
Until then, I have another regret, namely the fact that the
whole Rome Statute is not included in a schedule to the bill, to
the act. Why? Because if the Rome Statute had been included in a
schedule to the act, it would have been easy for all those
involved in Quebec and in Canada to provide training on the
International Criminal Court.
1205
Of course, we are told that it is easy to find this statute on
the Internet. That is true, but I hope that we are not about to
be told “No need to give you a hard copy of the bill, you can
access it on the Internet”. If it is desirable to have the bill
on paper, it is also desirable to have the Rome Statute in a
schedule to the bill.
We also regret that the Rome Statute was not submitted to the
House of Commons, and we say that of every treaty or convention.
I just came out of a committee meeting on globalization.
Witnesses told us that one of the great dangers facing us right
now in the process of globalization is the lapse of democracy.
This lapse concerns not just parliament and parliamentarians, but
also means that the executive branches of countries will
increasingly find themselves exercising responsibilities far
broader than those they had when there were not as many
international agreements affecting our daily existence.
This is true of trade agreements, which affect individual
citizens and provincial jurisdictions in particular, but it is
also true of citizens in their dealings with the Government of
Canada.
I wish to pay tribute to the efforts of the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry, who introduced a private member's bill
designed to ensure that treaties are submitted to the House of
Commons. I say to him that the Bloc Quebecois will continue this
battle for the democratization of parliament in the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
In conclusion, I hope that the vote will be unanimous. I am
certain that there is strong support for this bill in Quebec, to
the extent that people are aware of its existence, and I would
like to see that support deepen. The momentum created by the
first signatories must help take us quickly up to, and hopefully
past, the magic number of 60 countries, and still we must not
expect miracles.
With international crime increasing in tandem with
globalization, and the gap between rich and poor and between rich
and poor countries growing wider, neither democracy, peace or
justice are better served in the world as we know it today.
The work done on Bill C-19 on the international criminal court
is part of a much larger effort which is vital if we are ever to
hope that all human beings, regardless of their country of birth,
their age or status, may enjoy well-being, security, justice and
the fundamental right to make democratic decisions.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would first like to congratulate the hon. member for Mercier on
her excellent speech on Bill C-19. I am not going to reiterate
her criticisms, but I do agree with her suggestions for
improving the bill.
This is an important bill. It is an important step forward in
the international criminal court file. On behalf of my
colleagues in the NDP, I say once again that we support this
bill at third reading.
1210
[English]
I want to again highlight the important role that was played by
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
in improving and strengthening this legislation, Bill C-19. I
want to signal the contribution of a number of members of that
committee who worked in a truly non-partisan spirit, in
particular, the member for Mount Royal, the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry, the member for Vancouver Quadra, the
member for Mercier and others who made a good bill a better bill.
Certainly as we now debate this legislation at third reading, on
behalf of my colleagues in the federal New Democratic Party who
have long supported the international criminal court, we welcome
the adoption of this bill at third reading.
The member for Mercier appealed to the House to support this
bill unanimously, but unfortunately we heard a speech from the
Reform Party representative, the member for Surrey Central, that
was quite frankly shocking. Basically he said that if his party
were ever to form a government, one of its first acts would be to
repeal Bill C-19. It would repeal the bill that sets up an
international criminal court. It would repeal a bill which says
that the community of nations wants to ensure that those who are
responsible for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, for
genocide must be brought to justice.
I could not believe my ears when I heard that member speaking
for the so-called Canadian Alliance, supposedly a new party, with
that kind of destructive approach to human rights globally.
“Tear up the bill,” he said. “Forget the international court
of human rights being ratified by this parliament. We in the
Reform Party, we in the Canadian Alliance do not believe in this
bill”.
I fervently hope that the people of this country in the next
election will send a clear and powerful message to that party, a
message that this kind of intolerance, this kind of contempt for
fundamental human rights has no place in a decent and civilized
society and members of that party will be turfed out of this
parliament.
I want to touch on a couple of concerns with respect to the
issue of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. I
want to note first of all how profoundly important it is that the
resources be in place to properly investigate these crimes and
allegations of these crimes.
Earlier this year I was in East Timor. I had the opportunity
while there to meet with United Nations representatives who were
investigating the absolutely appalling atrocities that took place
particularly in the aftermath of the referendum on a free East
Timor. They were pleading with the global community to do far
more to bring in forensic experts to ensure that indeed we are in
a position to investigate and bring to justice those who were
responsible for these crimes.
I am very proud of the fact that there were a number of
Canadians, in fact Canadians were leading the investigative
effort into these terrible crimes that took place. A number of
Canadian doctors and others have played a significant role.
Frankly, CIDA should be doing far more to support this kind of
forensic investigation.
We note as well the recent decision of the court of appeal in
Chile to ensure that former President Pinochet is stripped of his
immunity and brought to justice. There again we welcome this
development in the international community, the recognition that
those like Pinochet who are responsible for such terrible
atrocities must be brought to justice. We hope that the supreme
court in Chile will uphold that historic and landmark decision.
At the same time we must recognize that in other jurisdictions,
including Sierra Leone, Rwanda and elsewhere, justice remains to
be done and far more must be done.
I mentioned East Timor. I want to recount the story I heard
from a woman who witnessed with her own eyes the brutal murder of
three Catholic priests in Suai, a village in the southern part of
East Timor.
1215
The woman was present when thugs, paramilitaries supporting the
Indonesian government, murdered in cold blood a Catholic priest
who many Canadians got to know and love when he spent some time
here in Windsor and elsewhere recently.
The woman was able to clearly identify the perpetrator of this
crime. The tragedy of this situation is that the perpetrator of
the crime is in a camp in West Timor with complete impunity. No
steps whatsoever have been taken by the Indonesian government to
bring him to justice. When we speak of war crimes and crimes
against humanity surely we must recognize that this is not
acceptable.
I want to touch on two other areas. First, as I noted in the
debate at second reading in the context of the discussion on war
crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, the global
community must recognize that the impact of years of sanctions on
the people of Iraq has been nothing short of genocidal.
UNICEF has documented the death of over half a million children.
The infrastructure in that country has been destroyed. The
bombing continues today. Innocent civilians are being killed.
The impact of depleted uranium particularly in the south remains
devastating. In the context of this debate I want once again to
appeal to the Government of Canada.
[Translation]
I want to ask our government to respond positively to the
unanimous report by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade calling for the immediate lifting of
economic sanctions against Iraq.
[English]
The foreign affairs committee held hearings on this issue. We
heard compelling and moving evidence about the impact of the
sanctions on the people of Iraq. I visited that country in
January of this year along with a delegation from a group called
Voices of Conscience. I met with former UN humanitarian
co-ordinator, Hans Van Sponeck. I met with Dennis Halliday, his
predecessor. All of them are pleading with the community of
nations, with the United Nations, with our government, with
Canada, to recognize the appalling and inhumane impact of these
sanctions on innocent human people. Saddam Hussein is not being
touched by these sanctions but innocent lives are being lost.
The standing committee on foreign affairs issued a strong and
unanimous report calling for the de-linking of economic and
military sanctions. Yet to date we have had no response
whatsoever from the foreign minister or from the Government of
Canada.
I appeal today to the Government of Canada to respond before the
House rises positively to that report, to listen to the voices of
Canadians from coast to coast to coast who are demanding that our
government stand up and be counted in the security council and
call for an end to these genocidal and inhumane sanctions. I
appeal to our government to respond to that strong, positive and
unanimous report of the foreign affairs committee at the earliest
possible time.
The final issue I want to touch on in the context of this debate
on war crimes and crimes against humanity is the issue of alleged
war crimes committed by NATO forces during Operation Allied Force
last spring in Kosovo and Serbia, the bombing that took place
there. Along with all people who value humanity we strongly
condemn the attacks on ethnic Albanians that were taking place
there. We urge the community of nations to work together
collectively to put a stop to that brutal inhumanity.
I was shocked and appalled to learn recently that our government
had decided to extend one of our highest military honours to the
United States Supreme Commander in Kosovo, U.S. General Wesley
Clark.
General Clark was granted by the governor general Canada's
meritorious service cross because he “exhibited the highest
standard of professional dedication in Operation Allied Force”.
1220
This award should never have been granted. I want to be very
clear. This is not in any way a criticism of Her Excellency
Governor General Adrienne Clarkson because she has no option. All
honours including the Order of Canada and bravery decorations are
awarded by the governor general on the advice of duly constituted
committees. There is a military advisory committee which
recommended to the chief of defence staff that General Clark
receive this recognition.
Far from recognizing the military valour of General Clark, we
should pay attention to the very eloquent report issued this week
by Amnesty International on NATO and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia under the heading “Collateral Damage or Unlawful
Killings? Violations of the Laws of War by NATO during Operation
Allied Force”. This is a devastating indictment of the conduct
of NATO under Supreme Commander Wesley Clark during the bombing
campaign in Kosovo.
I personally walked through the rubble of the Chinese embassy in
Belgrade, one of the mistakes of those who could not properly
read a map and killed innocent human beings in the Chinese
embassy.
I walked through the rubble of the Serbian radio-television
headquarters building as well. It was not a mistake. That
building was deliberately targeted by NATO. Sixteen innocent
people, make-up artists, technicians and journalists, were
murdered in cold blood in that building.
As Amnesty International points out, NATO has legal obligations
under international laws of war to minimize civilian casualties.
In the particular instance of this direct attack on the
headquarters of Serbian state radio and television, in the view
of Amnesty International it did indeed constitute a war crime. I
agree that on the face of it that is exactly what it constituted.
As well the Amnesty International report went on to document
other attacks such as the attack on the Grdelica railroad bridge.
A passenger train was carrying civilians travelling from one
place to another. It was not a military target by any stretch of
the imagination, but that passenger train was hit by a NATO bomb.
NATO said it was a mistake, that it was aiming for the bridge.
Surely the question is: If indeed that was a mistake and it hit
that passenger train initially by mistake, why did it then turn
around and fire a second time? That was deliberate, and the
ultimate author, supreme commander of that attack, is being
honoured by Canada.
What about the bombing in broad daylight of a bridge in
Varvarin? A little girl, nine years old, cycling on her bicycle
was murdered in cold blood because of the violation of the rules
of war contained in the Geneva convention of 1949, as updated by
the protocol of 1977. NATO showed contempt for its obligations
to minimize civilian casualties both through negligence and by
deliberately attacking. If the bridge in Varvarin was a
legitimate military target, why was it bombed in the middle of
the day when people were going to the market? There is no
acceptable answer to that question.
There are many other examples of the incompetence of this
campaign. NATO bragged about how many tanks, armoured personnel
carriers, pieces of artillery and so on it had taken out.
1225
It turns out that after the bombing campaign ended and the
Yugoslav armed forces withdrew from Kosovo they took out massive
quantities of military supplies. Newsweek reported last
month that pentagon officials had suppressed a U.S. air force
report that found that the number of Serb targets verified
destroyed was a tiny fraction of those claimed by NATO. U.S. air
force investigators who spent weeks in Kosovo found that NATO
aircraft had destroyed a grand total of 14 tanks, 18 armoured
personnel carriers and 20 artillery pieces. That is a pretty
incompetent campaign.
There is another example I want to give of this campaign which
is being honoured. That is the bombing of army barracks on May
21 at Kosare in western Kosovo, very close to the Albanian
border. These army barracks contained KLA fighters. Seven of
them were killed and twenty-five were injured. The KLA had
captured these army barracks several weeks before NATO attacked
them.
We might say that maybe NATO did not know that the Yugoslav army
was not there and that it had been captured by the KLA, but in
fact the KLA had a very active presence in that area. A number
of journalists reported before that facility was bombed that the
KLA had captured it. Reporters and television crews had visited
the very barracks that were bombed by NATO under KLA escort. They
were escorted by the KLA to those barracks. NATO said it did not
know.
What an incompetent campaign, and we are honouring those who are
responsible not only for this incompetence but for the death
through negligence and through deliberate attacks on hundreds of
innocent civilians. This is wrong.
I am calling today, as I have called previously, on the
government and on the Minister of National Defence to recognize
this outrage and to revoke this honour to U.S. General Wesley
Clark. Instead, we should be conducting a full inquiry into the
NATO campaign including the role that the Canadian armed forces
played in it. I was assured by General Hénault that Canadians
were not involved in any of the incidents to which I have
referred, but Canadians have a right to know precisely what role
was played by our armed forces.
As Amnesty International has suggested it is essential that NATO
establish a body to investigate these very serious allegations
and to ensure that the victims of these violations and their
families receive compensation. The victims of those who were
murdered at the Chinese embassy have been compensated. The
family of that little 9 year old girl who was killed on the
bridge at Varvarin and many other civilians have not been
compensated to this day. There has been no investigation
whatsoever.
In the context of this debate on war crimes, on crimes against
humanity and on genocide, I want to say on behalf of my
colleagues in the New Democratic Party that we support this bill
as an important step forward. Yes, it can be strengthened. Yes,
it can be improved. I hope we will have that opportunity. I am
pleased that Canada is one of the countries that has led this
long campaign to establish the international criminal court.
I want to pay tribute not only to the leadership that was shown
by Ambassador Philippe Kirsch but the many NGOs as well that have
worked long and hard to make this a reality.
I hope we will work collectively as a community of nations for a
planet on which there are no more war crimes, no more crimes
against humanity and no more genocide. I hope there will be a
rapid reaction force created to head off these things and that
collectively we can work for a planet in which there is respect
for the human rights of all our citizens; in which there is
justice, dignity for all citizens; and in which the crimes of
war, genocide and crimes against humanity will never happen
again. I hope those who are responsible for those that have
occurred will be brought to justice.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby—Douglas is a veteran member
of the House and in talking to him from time to time I have high
respect for him.
1230
He is an experienced member, but today he surprised me. He made
two comments which were not only inappropriate but they
misrepresented my position in my speech. Perhaps it was an
oversight on his part.
First, in my speech I said that the Canadian Alliance, myself
included, would strongly want those monsters who have blood on
their hands, those who have committed crimes against humanity,
war crimes and genocide, brought to justice. They should be held
accountable. I said it very clearly. Does that make me
intolerant? I do not think so.
The hon. member gave the impression that I and my party are
intolerant. I would like the hon. member to look into it again
and tell me what part of my speech today or on April 6 when I
gave a 40 minute speech on this issue showed me to be intolerant.
Judging from his experience and his wisdom, I guess he
misunderstood that. I would ask him to make it clear.
The second thing he mentioned was that the Canadian Alliance
party does not believe in this legislation. That again is wrong.
We strongly support the intent of the bill but we do not want a
half finished job. We want it done properly so that those
criminals, those monsters who have blood on their hands, are
brought to justice and held accountable for their crimes. We do
not want the government to rush the legislation through the
House. The international community is still negotiating and
finalizing the procedures and definitions of the terms mentioned
in the bill.
I think that the hon. member is confused or did not understand.
I would ask him to stand again and make it clear. If by any
chance he made a mistake, let him retract his comments.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear.
I heard the hon. member when he stood in his place. I have
travelled with the hon. member. I have worked on the foreign
affairs committee with the hon. member.
I know that the hon. member chose his words carefully. He can
rise in his place and correct me if I misunderstood but I believe
the hon. member said that a Canadian Alliance government would
scrap Bill C-19, that it would repeal Bill C-19. That is exactly
what the hon. member stood in his place and said. That is an
astonishing statement. He is the official critic for the
Canadian Alliance, for the Reform Party.
I see the former critic in the House today. Maybe he has a
different position. I hope there will be enough time for the
former critic to rise in his place and say, “No, Mr. Speaker,
with great respect I disagree with the member for Surrey Central.
I would not repeal Bill C-19”. But that is what the member
said. The member said that a Canadian Alliance government would
throw out Bill C-19, that it would scrap Bill C-19, that it would
repeal Bill C-19. He did not say, “We would want to amend Bill
C-19. We would want to strengthen Bill C-19. It is a good
foundation”. No, in fact he said, “We would repeal Bill
C-19”.
I appeal to the member for Red Deer. Perhaps he wants to revise
the position of the Canadian Alliance. I see him consulting with
the critic now. I appeal to the member for Red Deer to rise in
his place and, with great respect to the member for Surrey
Central, make it clear that the member is not going to repeal
Bill C-19. Have a change of heart. Show some respect for the
many NGOs who have spoken with one voice on this issue, those who
have worked so long and so hard, the World Federalists of Canada,
the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, and so many
others who are appalled at the possibility that those members
would actually repeal, scrap and wipe out this bill.
Those members say they are committed to bringing war criminals
to justice. How can they say that when according to their own
spokesperson they would get rid of this bill?
1235
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, certainly it is my privilege to stand and address the
member. I am rather shocked that he would choose to bring in
partisan politics to something as serious as this when we are
talking about war criminals. He seems to think that he holds all
the cards when it comes to compassion and understanding people.
I was in Kosovo and Macedonia last year as well. A grandfather
told me they had killed his oldest grandson, then his youngest
one, and then they had killed the middle one. He asked,
“Mister, how can you ever forgive those people? How can you
tell me to not hate anymore?”
That touched me and I will remember that forever, just as much
as the member has been touched and is compassionate toward those
kind of crimes against humanity. For him to stand and condemn a
party or condemn fellow MPs on something like this, I find that
rather untenable in this House, particularly from someone with
the kind of experience he has. I am sure he has compassion but
we also have compassion for those people.
The question is, how do we get at these kinds of people? There
are good guys and bad guys. The problem is that all the good
guys agree to sign everything and form all kinds of agreements
and all kinds of get-togethers where they can talk about what we
should do and talk and talk. The real problem is how to deliver.
How do we get the bad guys to sign on? How do we get after
them?
How will the member get the bad guys? We can list so many. We
can go to Sudan and Iraq. We can go to all kinds of places. How
does he get those bad guys to sign on to what we good guys know
should happen and want to happen?
As far as what the other member said, he has tried to put
forward amendments. He has tried to make the bill better. The
government is set on ramming the bill through in a hurry. Well,
it just will not work. That is why we are opposed to it.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have worked with
the member on the foreign affairs committee. Would he just affirm
very clearly for the people who are watching this debate, who are
concerned about this issue, the statement that was made by the
official critic for his party, that a Canadian Alliance
government would repeal Bill C-19? Is that the official position
of his party, yes or no?
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the time for questions
and comments has expired. Of course, as the hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas knows, the questions are on his speech, not on
that of the hon. member for Red Deer who may yet speak.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would seek the consent of the House to enable the hon.
member to answer the question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend
the time for questions or comments?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
might have been interesting to hear another version from the
Reform Party. Since this party's inception, it has changed its
position on a number of things as it evolved in this House.
Like most of the parties here, we wanted unanimous support to be
given Bill C-19. Unfortunately, the Reform Party has decided
otherwise. Before I move on to my speech, I would like to
express my condemnation of the socio-juridic-politico stupidity of
the Reform's argument on Bill C-19.
Like my colleague for Burnaby—Douglas, I too hope that people
will once again realize the true stripes of the Reform Party and
will act accordingly when they vote in the election of this fall
or next spring.
With modern communications, it has become impossible for the
rest of the planet not to know what atrocities are going on in a
country during wartime.
The international community has had a moral obligation to join
forces and to refuse to tolerate such reprehensible acts as the
Nazi concentration camps, and genocide in Rwanda, the former
Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and Sudan. It has become clear that
universal standards are required for the protection of the most
vulnerable populations.
Although there is much still to be done in order to ensure world
peace and security for all peoples, adoption of the Rome Statute
in July 1998, which created the International Criminal Court,
represents a giant step toward the establishment of an effective
international justice system to combat the worst atrocities
known to man and to punish the perpetrators.
1240
It is all a matter of political will, as we can see very clearly
in this case. For the first time, the international community
has decided to act, not in keeping with the interests of one or
another of its members, the security council in particular, but
in the interests of human rights, by refusing to turn a blind
eye to the most serious crimes recognized by international law,
namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
As we has said on a number of occasions, the Progressive
Conservative Party supports and strongly approves of Bill C-19.
Incidentally, I would like once again—who knows, perhaps for the
last time—to congratulate the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the
members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, who all worked together on this initiative,
without getting into partisan politics, with the exception
perhaps of the Reform Party.
As we mentioned on several occasions, Bill C-19 seeks to
implement Canada's obligations under the Rome Statute which, as
I said earlier, was adopted on July 17, 1998 by the United
Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the
Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICC.
With this bill, Canada displays leadership and clearly shows to
the international community that it will not be a haven for war
criminals.
The International Criminal Court will be the first international
authority empowered to investigate the most serious of crimes
under international law. These include genocide, crimes against
humanity and war crimes.
It was unacceptable that war criminals could quietly live out
their lives as if nothing had happened, even though they had
taken part in indescribable atrocities.
Just this past weekend, the United Nations said that women are
often the first victims of conflicts. Sanam Anderlini, from the
British group International Alert, said that “women's bodies
have become the new battlefield”. Indeed, as we saw in Bosnia,
Sierra Leone and Rwanda, 80% of the refugees and displaced
people during wars are women and children. Many of these women
were raped and abducted.
They went through forced pregnancies. They were treated like
sexual or domestic slaves the world over.
These crimes are not recent. However, they have gone unpunished
because they took place in the context of war and because of the
failure to act of the international community, which preferred to
turn a blind eye.
I am glad that these crimes will no longer be tolerated, that
they will be considered crimes against humanity, and that,
through Bill C-19, Canada is taking the first steps towards
making this a reality.
One point I wish to come back to is the defence that someone was
acting under a superior's orders. We have heard from people who
seemed hesitant about these provisions.
Let us remember the defence in the Finta decision, in which
Finta's lawyer quite rightly argued that, under the provisions of
the criminal code of the time, members of military or police
forces could use following a superior's orders as a defence.
In times of war, most crimes are committed either because a
superior has issued an order, or has looked the other way. Is
the deed any less reprehensible? Is the crime any less terrible?
No.
Now, this kind of defence will no longer be possible, except of
course in accordance with international law. These provisions
were necessary and show politicians' determination to act.
Another feature of the bill is its retroactivity.
In this connection, a number of people also expressed some
misgivings. Nevertheless, I congratulate the minister and the
committee on their work. In most cases, the actions in question
took place during the second world war, or during conflicts
prior to the signature of the Rome Statute.
1245
We must be realistic, however. Since most of the facts date back
more than 50 years, it is becoming increasingly difficult to
find those who perpetrated war crimes or crimes against
humanity, particularly under the Nazi regime.
As well, problems have arisen in the past when Department of
Justice officials tried to find witnesses in order to justify
extradition of a suspect. Without retroactivity, the bill would
not have made much sense.
The International Criminal Court complements our existing
courts; it does not replace them. The presumption of innocence
still applies. It is, however, important to take into
consideration the customary rules of international law. It is
normal, since it is not internal law but international criminal
law we are addressing today. There is an essential distinction
we must understand.
Because of the complexity of its objective, Bill C-19 prohibits
anyone from possessing any property or any proceeds of property
knowing it was obtained as the result of the perpetration of the
proposed new crimes.
This is a good provision, because Canada and the Progressive
Conservative Party both support the principle that no one must
profit from any type of crime, war crimes in particular.
Obviously, if the government wants war criminals to be found
guilty, certain other pieces of legislation also need amending.
The changes proposed for the Citizenship Act and the Extradition
Act, for example, will facilitate prosecution.
Clause 33 of Bill C-19 is aimed at amending the Citizenship Act
so that a person under investigation by the Minister of Justice,
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service for an offence under any of the crimes set
out in Bill C-19 may not be granted citizenship or administered
the oath of citizenship.
As to Bill C-19, Canada will now be obliged to hand over
individuals sought by the international criminal court for
genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. Under section
48 of the Extradition Act, a person who is the subject of a
request for surrender by the court may not claim immunity from
arrest or surrender.
I could say more on the need for this legislation, but I will
conclude by saying that the victims of war have been through
terrible trials. With Bill C-19, Canada is taking a stand by
saying that no war criminal is welcome on its soil. This
position has the support of Canadians and the Progressive
Conservative Party. We will not tolerate Canada's being a haven
for war criminals.
Bill C-19 is important. All the members of the committee did an
exceptional job and I would like to congratulate them. I hope
that the Canadian Alliance members will think twice about this.
Right now, over 12 countries—and France too, today—are passing
legislation enabling the Rome statute to be implemented. It
will take the support of 60 countries.
I heard the Canadian Alliance critic saying that we had to wait.
If everyone waits, nothing will get done. Already the
international community has waited too long to act. Nothing is
perfect, but the fact of acting immediately with Bill C-19 could
at least perhaps prevent or certainly send a signal that the
international community is ready and will be even more so in the
future to deal with these most heinous crimes.
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, who is a
distinguished jurist in his own right, the hon. member for Mount
Royal.
In speaking in the third reading debate to the crimes against
humanity and war crimes act, I will take note of a fact, which I
think is rather exceptional, that the debates in the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade were
exhaustive and at a very high level of technical competence.
It reminded me of what the late president of old World Court,
Manley Hudson, called an academy of jurists. In that sense,
although it is still possible to offer projects of amendments, I
hope that some of the parties will accept what I am doing, simply
make points of clarification in the debate which courts can take
note of as part of the travaux préparatoires in their future
interpretations.
1250
My first point is that the bill is enacting into Canadian law
the provisions of an international treaty. As a matter of law,
of Canadian constitutional law, it suffices for Canada to be
bound by an international convention that we sign and that we
ratify by executive act. In fact we gave this opinion to the
foreign minister when I was parliamentary secretary a little
earlier on the land mines treaty, because we wanted to send the
symbolic message of the treaty coming to legal conclusion within
a year of opening for signature. We could ratify without the
enacting legislation and be legally bound. The practice since
the privy council decision in the labour convention case in 1937
has been to recognize that since a legislative power to implement
may be split sometimes between provinces and the federal
government, it makes good sense to await provincial action. I
mention that, nevertheless, because that is the position in law.
In implementing the treaty the Canadian government creates new
jurisdictional bases and also new substantive bases of criminal
liability or delinquencies within Canadian law. I would like
to add this point because it does relate to some of the
amendments I think suggested by the Bloc and by the New
Democratic Party. It does not per se displace customary
international law. I would suggest that except to the extent
that customary international law may be in direct conflict with
Canadian constitutional law or legislation enacted thereunder, it is
in force and is a supplement to the treaty. There may be
jurisdictional and other difficulties in implementing, but it is
there.
I would simply refer to your notice, the judgment
of the World Court in Nicaragua v United States,
rendered by 15 votes to 1, in which the court refused to accept
that the adoption of the United Nations charter had pre-empted
all of international law, that it was all under the charter and
nothing else. It said that was not so. Customary international
law still prevails and the court based its judgment in Nicaragua
v United States on customary international law.
A third point arises after the Rome treaty becomes law. It
comes into force in international law when it is ratified by the
60 states stipulated as necessary to enact it. I raise the
question: Does it bind non-signatory, non-ratifying states? I
would here suggest the five permanent members of the security
council. I am delighted to learn that the French government has
decided to ratify this treaty. That is a breach in the
opposition of the five permanent members of the security council
that we had in Rome.
Monsieur Richard, the French minister of defence who was here
several months ago, discussed this very earnestly with some of us
and I became convinced that France would come through and I hope
it will be an example to other permanent members: Russia, Great
Britain, China and the United States, not least. There was the
then
heretical opinion by the brilliant Polish judge, Manfred Lachs,
the most interesting judge in the post-war world court, in the
North Sea Continental Shelf case, a dissenting opinion, but he did
say that treaties by the universality of their reach and perhaps
also the number of countries adhering to them could become
binding on non-signatory, non-ratifying states because they are
part of general international law. That was an heretical opinion
30 years ago when that decision was given. It is no longer
heretical. It has become a more or less general part of law
opinio iuris. Not everybody accepts it, but I cite it simply as an
indication to the other remaining hold-outs who are permanent
members of the security council. In the Latin phrase quod licet
Jovie, licet bovi; what is permitted to Jove on high should be
permitted to the humble oxen below.
1255
It does not make sense for countries to push the jurisdiction
of the ad hoc tribunal for Yugoslavia if they are not themselves
prepared to say “We will be bound by the Rome treaty”.
An issue has arisen here as to the applicability of ordinary
Canadian criminal law in ordinary Canadian courts. It is the
General Pinochet factor. It is the most interesting, exciting
and unexpected development in international law in the last year
or two. The House of Lords in its judicial committee, normally
known as a very conservative tribunal, took two big steps forward
in asserting jurisdiction over General Pinochet. The home
secretary made the political decision and took one and a half
steps backward, but it is still there.
Under Canadian law any Canadian judge, in theory, subject of
course always to the possibility of appeal, could find
jurisdiction over a citizen of a foreign state, including even
friendly foreign states and allies, if he or she so wished and
felt there was an adequate base in Canadian law. The General
Pinochet factor remains a wild card in international law, but it
is interesting how much it has involved ordinary citizens,
ordinary people and non-governmental associations in the
international lawmaking process.
I am simply saying that the Rome treaty is a comprehensive and
well thought out approach to universalizing jurisdiction over the
most severe sort of crimes, crimes against humanity. It follows
in the principle that was established in the first aerial piracy
conventions and the first moves to control terrorism, of the hue
and cry. That there is no safe place.
I do not expect the General Pinochet factor to be paramount in
Canadian practice or even perhaps to occur, but it might be worth
reminding people who have crimes on their conscience that if they
want to take a holiday abroad or consult for medical treatment
abroad, it is not really “Do not go to Great Britain”, but
perhaps also “Do not go to Canada”.
I will note a last and general point because it emerged during
the debate in the standing committee on foreign affairs and was
the subject of thoughtful evidence by members of our permanent
foreign ministry staff. It is a matter of law, and I note it and
will read it into the record. The testimony led before the
standing committee was quite directly that Canadian military
personnel did not participate in those aerial missions which have
been the focus of much public attention and debate in connection
with Kosovo. But, and these are the affirmative points, Canada
accepted the jurisdiction of the UN international tribunal for
the former Yugoslavia over Canadian forces throughout the
conflict. Also, in regard to every Canadian mission flown, a
Canadian forces legal officer examined the target assigned with a
view to ensuring its lawfulness under Canadian law and also
international law.
That is a good example of respect for international law and a
recognition that in policy decisions it is good to have the
international law adviser at one's side. We know that during
the Cuban missile crisis President Kennedy had his legal adviser,
the very great, recently deceased, Professor Abe Chayes of the
Harvard Law School, at his side. The action taken, among many
options, was to choose that action which was compatible with
international law, and it was effective. It is a good principle
to note: keep the legal adviser at hand. We can do what is
politically the right thing, but we can also do it compatibly
with international law.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made some very good comments,
which I have listened to carefully.
I have a question for the hon. member. Since the definition and
procedures and evidence rules are not very clear in the bill, nor
are they spelled out, why does the government want to rush?
Why did it not want to wait until the right procedures, rules of
evidence and the definitions were place? We understand that
there needs to be 60 members to ratify. So far only 8 or 10
members have signed to ratify. We still have some time. In the
absence of the clarity, the definitions and the procedures, the
government should not have rushed this through.
1300
Second, this is a very important bill. We normally point out
difficulties in the international community when we have to
distinguish the bad guy from good guys. All the good guys will
sign the international treaty but the bad guys will not. How
would the hon. member propose we hold the bad guys accountable
and ensure they sign the treaty?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, the point I have been
making is that with the progressive development of international
law under the United Nations charter, it is a step in
international law, initially sponsored by Judge Lachs and that
very interesting dissenting opinion in 1968, that non-signatories
to an international treaty can be legally bound by the treaty
either, to use an analogy, because the treaty becomes, by virtue
of the number of states signing it, part of customary
international law, or because the sheer number indicates it is
part of the general principles of law recognized by nations under
article 38(1)(d) of the World Court statute.
What we are saying here is, beware. The mere fact that a
country does not sign, does not mean that it can escape
responsibility. I do expect that with the progressive
development of international law, further steps may be taken to
extend jurisdiction through the Security Council or elsewhere
over non-signatory states where the gravity of the offence
suggests it. However, at the moment we are working with friendly
persuasion.
When we spoke several months ago to the French minister, Mr.
Richard, a most interesting and thoughtful gentleman, we made the
case for France signing and ratifying the treaty, and it has done
it. We are hoping we can persuade other countries, the other
four members of the Security Council, to feel the same. It makes
good sense.
We asked United States senators in Washington several weeks ago
why they did not sign, because they are the strong force behind
the war crimes tribunal on Yugoslavia, but it really does not
make much sense for them to say they are taking themselves out of
jurisdiction.
Canada is very proud of its forces and has full confidence in
them. We say that we will accept their subjection to the war
crimes tribunal on the former Yugoslavia, That was an act of
faith, but it has not gone wrong. I am satisfied that the
Canadian forces acted in full conformity with international law
in their part in the Kosovo action.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I did not get the answer
to my first question. Why was there such a rush to ram this bill
through parliament, particularly when it is quite likely that the
House will be recessing before the weekend? Why could we not
have waited until September or October when the international
negotiations, the definitions, the procedures and the rules of
evidence will be laid down and the rules of the game will be
clear. Why did the government not wait until the rules of the
game were clear and then draft a perfectly excellent bill that
all parties could support?
Everyone is supporting the intent of the bill. Even the
Canadian Alliance supports the intent of the bill but we do not
want to leave the bill half cooked. We want to make sure it is
well done. I would like to know why there was such a hurry.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member
has fought a long time to get full respect for committees and the
plenary powers they have in the elaboration and drafting of
bills. I would simply repeat that on this particular section the
amount of time given to this particular bill in the standing
committee was extraordinary.
It was an example to all other committees. It involved 10, 12,
14 and 16 hours of point by point elaboration. May I say that in
my capacity as president for the next two years of the Institut
de droit international, it was a superb performance and a great
credit to the quality of our committees. We have four
international lawyers in parliament and I am told that is 400%
greater than the British parliament, the United States congress
or others. I signal the contribution of others in the committee.
The committee did a remarkable job. I do not think there is any
rush. Some may even have said that we spent too much time.
1305
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Vancouver
Quadra for suggesting that he would split his time with me, but I
wish to speak in my own right and take the full 20 minutes.
I rise to speak to Bill C-19, the crimes against humanity and
war crimes act, at a historic moment of remembrance and reminder,
of witness and warning, on the eve of the 50th anniversary of the
codification by the United Nations General Assembly in 1950 of
the Nuremberg principles which are symbol and substance, source
and inspiration of the revolution in international human rights
law in general and international humanitarian law in particular.
For the Nuremberg principles codified for the first time, the
Grundnorm principle that individuals, including heads of state,
are criminally responsible for the commission of war crimes and
crimes against humanity. Nor can individuals plead acts of state
or superior orders as exculpatory grounds for their criminality.
For these Nuremberg crimes were deemed to be crimes against
humankind itself. Those who commit them are hostis humanis
generis, the enemies of humankind, while the rights violated
would include every right protected in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the Magna Carta of humankind.
It is not surprising then, given the continuing and pervasive
state of international atrocity and criminality since judgment at
Nuremberg, and the impunity accompanying it, that the idea and
inspiration for establishing an international criminal court has
remained on the international agenda with greater or less
visibility since judgment at Nuremberg.
However, it took the globalized horror of the killing fields of
the nineties, the horror of Bosnia, the agony of Rwanda, the
brutalized women and children of Sierra Leone and Sudan, the
emergence of the unthinkable, ethnic cleansing, and the
unspeakable, genocide, as paridigmatic forms of armed conflict in
the nineties, to give the idea of an international criminal court
the moral compellability and sense of urgency that it warrants.
The establishment of an international criminal court was an idea
whose time had come, indeed, was long overdue. What
distinguishes the international criminal court from the ad hoc
tribunals is that the ICC is the first permanent international
tribunal with a global jurisdiction to try individuals for
criminal violations of international humanitarian law.
Unlike the International Court of Justice, whose contentious
jurisdiction is restricted to states, the ICC will have juridical
authority to indict individuals from any global killing field,
and unlike the ad hoc character of the Yugoslavian and Rwandan
war crimes tribunals, the jurisdiction of the ICC will not be
chronologically or geographically limited.
Bill C-19 is designed to implement in Canada the statute for an
ICC, to provide a Canadian legislative foundation for the
prosecution of war criminals so as to ensure that Canada will not
become a haven for war criminals past or present, and to serve as
an international model for Nuremberg legacy legislation.
Accordingly, I will first describe briefly the purposive
character of the ICC and why it is of such moral and juridical
compellability and urgency at this time. Second, I will outline
the principles underlying Bill C-19. For reasons of time, I will
limit myself to identifying rather than elaborating upon the
respective purposes and principles of the ICC and Bill C-19.
I will turn now to the purposive character of the ICC, which may
be summarized as follows.
1310
Principle number one is to institutionalize and internationalize
the Nuremberg legacy. In a word, there will be no safe havens
for these hostis humanis generis, the enemies of humankind.
Principle number two is to end the culture of impunity. Despite
the Nuremberg and Tokyo principles and precedents, impunity has
been the national and international practice. The ICC will
presage a culture of accountability as an antidote to a culture
of impunity.
Principle number three is to deter international crimes and
protect international peace and security. An ICC will not only
deter prospective war criminals and génocidaires from killing
their own citizens, let alone nationals from other countries, but
it will facilitate and protect peacekeeping as well as the
protection of international peace and security.
Principle number four is to counter the failure of national
systems. In an ideal world, international crimes should be dealt
with by national authorities of the state in which they were
committed. In the real world, however, governments are often
unwilling, even unable, to call their own citizens to account, as
exemplified by the Yugoslavian and Rwandan experiences.
Principle number five is to remedy the limitations of such ad hoc
tribunals. In a word, these ad hoc tribunals, such as in the
former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, are no substitute for a permanent
international tribunal. Politically, the selective establishment
of such tribunals by the Security Council gives rise to
allegations or apprehensions of political bias. Juridically, it
is jurisprudential authority that is more situation specific than
internationally specific.
Principle number six is to provide enforcement mechanisms. In a
word, the ICC is necessary to overcome one of the main failings
of international criminal law: the lack of a permanent,
institutionalized enforcement system.
Principle number seven is to provide an alternative to military
sanctions. There is presently no permanent, non-military or
coercive juridical mechanism to hold individual perpetrators
accountable. In such circumstances, the international
community's only recourse is to impose sanctions, embargoes or to
use military force. However, these are blunt instruments that
may harm innocent civilians, as in Iraq, more than affect
perpetrators. By focusing the rule of law more precisely on
individual violators, international law would become more just
and more effective.
Principle number eight is to afford redress for victims and
their families, if not affected populations as a whole.
Principle number nine is to provide a counter to any historical
revisionism after the fact and a means for truth, healing and
reconciliation.
Principle number ten is to serve as an international justice
model, as a standard-bearer in the implementation of
international norms both domestically and internationally.
I will turn now to the basic principles underlying Bill C-19
itself.
The first principle is the individual criminal responsibility.
This legislation is organized around the foundational Nuremberg
principle, as set forth in the judgment of the Nuremberg tribunal
itself, and I quote, that “crimes against international law are
committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing
the individuals who commit such crimes can international law be
enforced”.
The second principle is the domestication of ICC crimes. Bill
C-19 will create offences based on the Rome statute of genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes that would apply to such
international criminal conduct if committed in Canada, while
similar offences would be created with respect to international
criminal conduct committed outside Canada.
The third principle is the principle of command and superior
responsibility. The bill includes offences of breach of
responsibility by military commanders and other superiors. In a
word, failure of a military commander or superior to exercise
control over persons under their authority which results in the
subordinates committing genocide, a crime against humanity or war
crimes, could result in the criminal responsibility of the
military commanders or superiors if they failed to take measures
to repress the crime or to submit the matter to the competent
authorities for investigation.
Principle number four is that of state responsibility for
international crimes. States are under an obligation to
prosecute, or to extradite for purposes of prosecution, any
individuals present in their territory who are accused of
international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity or war
crimes.
1315
Principle number five is that of universal jurisdiction. As
the perpetrators of such international crimes are indeed defined
as the enemies of humankind, Canada now has the legislative basis
to prosecute the perpetrators of such crimes from whatever
source, if they are found in Canada.
Principle number six is that of complementarity, a principle of
particular importance. In a word the ICC is designed to
complement, not replace, national courts. It will therefore
exercise jurisdiction where national courts are unwilling or
unable to bring perpetrators to justice.
Principle number seven is that of offences against the ICC. Bill
C-19 includes offences to protect the integrity of legal
processes under the international criminal court and to protect
judges and officials of the ICC as well as witnesses. In
particular, it includes offences of obstructing justice,
obstructing officials, bribery of judges and officials, perjury,
fabricating or giving contradictory evidence, and intimidation of
officials or witnesses.
I come now to principle number eight, the principle of
protection against gender violence. The ICC statute includes
explicit provisions for crimes of sexual and gender violence,
identifying as crimes against humanity and war crimes, conduct
that is directed specifically against women, such as “rape,
sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, enforced pregnancy,
enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of
comparable violence”.
Principle number nine is that of the protection of children in
armed conflict. The Rome statute also includes as a war crime
the conscripting or enlisting of children under the age of 15
into national armed forces or using them to actively participate
in hostilities in international armed conflict. This is a
principle central to Canada's human security agenda.
Principle number 10 is the aiding and abetting principle.
Persons who aid and abet, counsel, or otherwise assist in the
commission of an offence are considered to be parties to that
offence. The bill has also been amended to close any loopholes with
respect to the inclusion of attempts, conspiracies and being an
accessory after the fact.
Principle number 11 is with respect to the forced transfer of
civilian populations into an occupied territory. The prohibition
against forced transfer of a civilian population into an occupied
territory by an occupying power will adhere to the intent and
scope of the offence as set forth in the Geneva Conventions Act
of 1949, as per the footnote to the ICC, and to protect against the
politicization of this offence.
With respect to principle number 12, Bill C-19, unlike as
some have said, does cover non-state actors. The bill provides
criminal liability for “persons” which, pursuant to section 2
of the criminal code, includes legal entities such as
corporations.
Principle number 13 is that of reparations. Victims will be
entitled to reparations including restitution, compensation and
rehabilitation.
Principle number 14 is a particularly important one, the
principle of non-immunity, the Pinochet principle and beyond. In
a word a person who is the subject of a request for surrender by
the ICC, pursuant to clauses 48 and 70 of the bill, will not be
able to claim immunity under common law or statute from arrest or
extradition under the Extradition Act.
As well, a person who is the subject of a domestic prosecution,
including a head of state or senior official, will not be able to
claim immunity from prosecution under common law or statute, as
set forth in clause 3 of the bill. The principle of non-immunity
in section 27 of the ICC statute coupled with article 98 in that
statute, may arguably be said to have been incorporated by
reference in the domestication in Bill C-19 of the ICC statute
itself.
Principle number 15 is that of due process. The ICC statute
incorporates the highest international standards of the right to
fair trial and due process, while Canadian law is further
buttressed by due process guarantees as set forth in the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and related jurisprudence.
1320
Principle number 16 is that of the superior orders defence. The
scope of the superior orders defence has been clarified in the
bill. Consistent with the Rome statute, persons accused of
genocide, crimes against humanity, or other manifestly unlawful
acts would not—I repeat, would not—be able to raise this
defence. Further, and to address any adverse fallout from the
Finta decision, a person would not be able to base a defence on
hate propaganda against an identifiable group as grounds for
defence against international crimes.
The last principle is principle number 17, that of state
co-operation. State parties such as Canada are obliged to
co-operate fully with the ICC, a principle anchored in our own
mutual legal assistance and related legislation.
In summary, Bill C-19 is comprehensive, historic, indeed
watershed legislation by any national or international standard.
It is an expression and an example of the best witness testimony
of representative human rights NGOs who appeared before the
committee, as well as the expertise of the legal advisors and the
members of all parties on the foreign affairs committee, such as
the expertise of the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
The legislation, as I indicated at the outset, is being enacted
at a historic moment of remembrance and reminder on the eve of
the 50th anniversary of the codification by the United Nations
General Assembly of the Nuremberg principles in 1950. This
legislation may be said to be the contemporary embodiment of an
expanded, refined, updated set of Nuremberg principles for the
new millennium. It will place Canada at the forefront of the
international justice movement and give juridical validation to
the anguished plea of victims and survivors from the Holocaust to
the present day killing fields of “never again”.
It is a wake-up call and a warning to tyrants everywhere. There
will be no safe havens, no base or sanctuary for the enemies of
humankind. It is now incumbent upon Canada to take the lead in
securing the necessary ratifications to bring the international
criminal court treaty into effect and to ensure the dream and the
efficacy of our own domestic landmark legislation.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
1325
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. At the request of the
chief government whip, the vote on the motion will be deferred
until 5:30 p.m. later this day.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage) moved that Bill C-27, an act respecting the national
parks of Canada, be now read the third time and passed.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we begin the debate at
third reading stage of Bill C-27, I would once again like to
thank my colleagues from the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage for their work on this bill, an act respecting the
national parks of Canada.
The debates on this bill were marked by a spirit of co-operation
that helped strengthen and improve it.
I would like to review the main features of Bill C-27 and
mention the amendments made by the standing committee.
The first point concerns ecological integrity. The panel on the
ecological integrity of Canada's national parks clearly
indicated that “we must firmly and unequivocally establish that
ecological integrity is the core value of Parks Canada's
mandate”.
The chair of the panel and other witnesses, including the
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Canadian Nature
Federation, reaffirmed that position before the standing
committee.
Bill C-27 was strengthened in a number of ways: by including a
definition of ecological integrity based on the panel's report;
by making ecological integrity the top priority, not only as
regards the zoning of parks and their use by visitors, but also
all the aspects of their management; by specifying that
management plans must include a long term ecological vision, a
set of ecological integrity objectives and indicators and
provisions for resource protection and restoration, zoning,
visitor use, public awareness and performance evaluation; and,
finally, by requiring that, within one year following the
tabling of a new or amended management plan for a park, a
wilderness area be designated.
[English]
The second point was the establishment of new parks. With this
legislation seven new national parks and one new national park
reserve will be formally established. As well, Middle Island
will be added to the Point Pelee National Park.
The procedure for establishing new parks and park reserves has
been streamlined by providing for an order in council process. It
will take less time to formally establish new parks once park
establishment agreements have been signed.
[Translation]
The examination in parliament of proposals on new protected
spaces will be maintained, and an amendment to the act will
still be needed to withdraw lands from a park.
In view of concerns about the new process for the establishment
of parks, Bill C-27 has been amended as follows:
For every proposal on a new park or park reserve tabled in
Parliament, there will be a report detailing the consultations
held and any agreement on the establishment of the park, so that
Parliament will be able to assess the amount of support the park
or park reserve is getting.
Members of the citizens' committee of Havre-Saint-Pierre and
Longue-Pointe-de-Mingan, and of the hunting and fishing association
have appeared before the standing committee to ask that their
traditional rights be recognized in the Mingan archipelago
national park reserve. The committee has seen fit to add this
reserve to the list of parks where the traditional harvesting of
resources will be allowed.
1330
[English]
The next point is controlling commercial development in park
communities. There are seven communities contained in national
parks, all in western Canada: Banff, Lake Louise, Field, Jasper,
Waterton Lakes, Waskesiu and Wasagaming. I apologize if I am
mispronouncing any of these names and further names that will
come in my text. These communities have been the focus of
extensive commercial, residential and visitor pressures.
The Banff-Bow Valley study of 1996 made many recommendations to
protect the ecological integrity of Banff National Park and to
strengthen controls over commercial development and human use in
parks.
The new act takes steps to control commercial developments in
park communities. Community plans will be tabled in parliament.
The legislation makes provision to set the boundaries of the
communities, the boundaries of commercial zones, and to cap the
maximum square footage of commercial developments. These
elements of the community plans will be placed in the schedule of
the act and can only be changed by an act of parliament.
Concerns were raised by park community representatives during
the hearings on Bill C-27 and the standing committee has
responded. Regarding concerns with respect to termination of
leases, the bill has been amended to state that the Expropriation
Act applies.
Community plan has been defined to mean a land use plan for a
park community. This new definition serves two purposes. First,
it ensures that there will be no confusion between the use of the
term community plan in this legislation and how that term is used
in Alberta legislation. Second, it signals to park community
residents that there is no impediment to their undertaking their
own planning for social, educational, health and related needs of
the community.
The section on public consultation now makes explicit reference
to representatives of park communities and requires that the
minister consult on land use planning and development in such
park communities.
[Translation]
The next point has to do with the protection of wildlife and
other park resources. Bill C-27 contains increased penalties for
poaching. The maximum fine for poaching protected species has
been increased to $50,000. The maximum jail sentence for
poaching has been increased from six months to five years. The
offence of trafficking has been introduced to deal with the
increasing trend towards removing large quantities of animal or
other resources, such as fossils and rare plants.
Amendments to the bill further strengthen wildlife protection by
increasing fines for poaching or trafficking involving protected
species to $250,000, which is consistent with recent legislative
proposals concerning threatened species, and by increasing fines
and penalties for failure to clean up environmental damage from
$2,000 to $50,000, including a clause which doubles the fines in
the case of repeat offences.
[English]
The next point is working with first nations. The Government of
Canada, as we all know, is committed to working with first
nations as set out in the “Gathering Strength” document.
Bill C-27 reflects this commitment in a number of ways. Five
national parks are being established through agreements with
first nations. I repeat my previous apology on mispronunciation.
These are Aulavik, Wapusk, Auyuittuq, Sirmilik and Quttinirpaaq.
Second, provision is made for use of parklands and the use or
removal of flora and other objects by aboriginal people for
spiritual and traditional ceremonial purposes. Provisions are
made in the bill to remove lands from Wood Buffalo and Wapusk to
accommodate treaty land entitlement.
The standing committee heard from representatives of the
Assembly of First Nations, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and
the Keeseekoowenin Band. They had two primary concerns that they
wished to see dealt with in the legislation: first, respect for
aboriginal and treaty rights and, second, consultation with
aboriginal peoples.
1335
The standing committee introduced amendments to Bill C-27 in
response to these concerns. These include a non-derogation
clause with regard to aboriginal and treaty rights; strengthening
the commitment to consult with aboriginal organizations and
bodies established under land claim agreements on policy, park
establishment, management planning and regulations; including
aboriginal organizations and bodies established under land claim
agreements in the minister's agreement making authority; and
provision to remove lands from Riding Mountain National Park for
the purposes of settling the claim of the Keeseekoowenin Band.
[Translation]
In conclusion, the throne speech included a promise from the
government to extend our system of national parks.
In 1997, the government undertook to create a commission of
experts to look into the ecological integrity of Canada's
national parks. This commission has now tabled its report and
the Minister of Canadian Heritage has announced an action plan. A
key feature of this plan is to place ecological integrity at the
heart of legislation and policies.
Bill C-27 respects these undertakings and will become a heritage
for future generations of Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-27, an act
respecting the national parks of Canada, at third reading. Let
me begin by saying that Canadians respect and love their national
parks. That is why they return to visit them year in and year
out.
The first parks act of 1930 states that parks are hereby
dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education
and enjoyment. Such parks shall be maintained and made use of as
to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
Today's definition of use has not changed as we find it in
subclause 4(1) of Bill C-27.
Canadians agree that the ecological integrity of our national
parks needs to be preserved and protected for future generations.
The Canadian Alliance agrees with the panel on ecological
integrity that ecological integrity is the first priority and
that efforts need to be made to manage, conserve and restore
ecological integrity to our parks.
We do not agree with the notion of promoting restoration as a
single objective. This approach to the concept of restoration is
too open ended. To what time lines will restoration be returned?
This is like the crimes against humanity debate when we are
talking about 20th century crimes against humanity or whether we
take it back to the age of the caveman.
We agree with the panel that people have a place in the parks.
There certainly needs to be a balance. Another important point
highlighted by the panel is that decisions made by the parks must
be based on sound science, not just opinions of special interest
groups or park officials.
Canadian Alliance agrees with the principle of limited growth.
That is not the argument. The argument is about the lack of
transparency, honesty and good will in the consultation process
which has gone on for too long. There is a lack of trust in
Parks Canada officials.
Allow me to make some positive comments about the rank and file
Parks Canada employees. As public servants we need to thank them
for their dedication to their work in our national parks. Parks
Canada has many roles to fulfil beyond national parks. It is
also responsible for historic sites. At this time let me thank
the minister for supporting the designation of William Barker,
VC, as a Canadian war hero.
Other jobs of Parks Canada are the marine conservation areas,
federal historic buildings, historic railway stations, heritage
river systems, federal archaeology and the grave sites of former
prime ministers. I thank both the minister and the parliamentary
secretary for supporting one of the Canadian Alliance's
amendments which would mandate recognition of traditional supply
water from a park when an agreement has been negotiated. I also
thank the Parks Canada Agency and Tom Lee for their help in the
acceptance of our amendment.
I would like to address some of the outstanding park issues that
the bill does not properly address. The most important issue is
about mandating consultation. Mandated consultation would
improve the democratic process and develop a level of trust that
does not currently exist today between the park tenants and the
park administration.
1340
Over the last two years I have done some extensive workshops
with park residents to try to find out for myself what the issues
were throughout the western parks. I have provided members of
the heritage committee and the clerk the results of these
workshops.
Consistently I have found that there tended to be a lack of
trust between park officials and park users. Even when public
consultation occurs public input was ignored. Time and time
again it was pointed out that decisions made by park officials
did not address the local needs.
It was repeatedly stated that Parks Canada should get out of the
business of municipal governance and that it should be looking
after parks, not town sites, where there is no expertise. Even
publicly elected advisory committees are frustrated with Parks
Canada on how it ignores advice.
Even when the consultation process was exercised it was not
transparent, honest or accountable. Many park users found the
consultation process difficult to understand. Another criticism
was the lack of accountability in the way parks spent the money
collected from the tenants through leases.
The issue of leases must be resolved so that it will be
equitable to both parties through negotiation, not top down
without any input. How could Parks Canada justify lease
increases up to 10 times their current value without giving the
property owner due process? It is in essence taxation without
representation. If due process is not respected, what is the
difference between Bill C-70 and Bill C-27?
What is needed is a comprehensive approach inviting both
commercial and recreational tenant representation from all the
parks to sit down at the table with park officials and resolve
this contentious issue.
My findings were echoed by many of the witnesses coming before
the heritage committee. Canadian Alliance made many amendments
to address the issues of access and accountability which were
defeated. Two amendments put forth by the Canadian Alliance were
based on the principles of health and safety.
The first one is to mandate keeping open air strips located in
all national parks for the purpose of public safety. COPA
representing the general aviation sector in Canada has asked for
this change for too many years. I believe that saving one life
is worth putting this into the bill.
The second point is to mandate that all park wardens have all
the resources to do their jobs without jeopardizing their health
and safety. Whose lives will be jeopardized if this change is
not made by Parks Canada? This is also long overdue.
Another direction which Canadian Alliance wanted to take was the
recognition of local government bodies throughout this act. We
believe that this would have been an inclusive approach to begin
the recognition of municipal governments in Canada, a view
supported by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
Let me close by saying that Bill C-27 had the potential to make
the system more accountable. It would not have required a major
overhaul. With a few more amendments the bill would ensure that
the democratic process would be respected by all parties. The
Canadian Alliance will not be supporting the bill as presented at
third reading.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are at
third reading of Bill C-27, on national parks.
It must be understood that the first objective of the bill is to
ensure maintenance and restoration of the integrity of federal
parks. Of course, everybody understands that these very
important objectives cannot be reached only with one statute.
However, the maintenance and restoration of the ecological
integrity of parks depend much more on the attitude of the Parks
Canada Agency, its management and staff.
However, Bill C-27 is a first element and a legislative framework
that will allow the necessary culture to emerge and to develop
fully within the Parks Canada Agency.
1345
In fact, that was one of the major recommendations of the
commission, which recently reviewed those issues recently and
which emphasized the need to make this change of culture and to
prioritize the maintenance and restoration of the ecological
integrity of parks. This bill could achieve that.
The bill states that, in the performance of his duties, the
minister must consult the people and the authorities in the
areas concerned.
This is an indispensable element that is essential if the agency
is to carry out its mandate. Indeed, in all the parks, there are
aboriginal communities which, in certain cases, cannot be
neglected in the everyday planning of the agency in the exercise
of its mandate.
The bill provides, in my opinion, sufficient and efficient
consultation of the communities and organizations concerned.
Furthermore, if this bill seems entirely acceptable on the
whole, it does contain a clause that does not concern federal
parks, but concerns historic sites. We do not know why this
short clause, on historic sites, is in the bill, which is
otherwise well structured. In fact, when we read this clause, we
realize that it is quite badly written.
I suggested to the House, at report stage, that this clause be
removed from the bill. But the House did not see fit to accept
my suggestion.
This clause presents a serious problem for municipalities and
provinces where there are potential historic sites. Indeed, this
clause provides that the agency may acquire such historic
properties and declare them historic sites without having to
consult in any way the provincial or municipal governments
concerned.
This aspect is out of tune with the rest of the bill, which
clearly affirms that there must be consultations between the
department, agency officials and, finally, the minister and the
people or organizations concerned.
In this clause, there is no mention of any obligation on the
part of the minister to take counsel together or to consult with
the provinces or the local governments.
I find this strange and even frightening. That is why, on the
one hand, I suggest that the provincial legislatures ensure that
any real estate transaction that would result in the transfer of
an historical site to the federal government be submitted, for
approval, to the provincial minister concerned.
On the other hand, I humbly and respectfully suggest that the
government review this clause and that it reword it more
rigorously and, above all, in a manner that would be more
respectful of the provinces and municipalities, regarding the
preservation and the enhancement of the historical sites affected
by this clause of the bill.
1350
In conclusion, let me say that Bill C-27 will really allow us to
focus on the preservation and the restoration of the ecological
integrity of federal parks. In that perspective, the Bloc
Quebecois endorses the goals of this bill and will obviously
support it at third reading.
[English]
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-27.
I have a national park in my riding. It is one of the most
beautiful spots in the world, Waterton Lakes National Park. I
spent some time up there talking to the people in the park. I
have been able to meet with the superintendents, present and
past, to discuss issues. I recently attended a Waterton Lakes
leaseholders meeting to hear what some of their concerns are and
certainly some of the comments made by the member for
Dauphin—Swan River were reflected in the comments I heard.
I would like to compliment the member for Dauphin—Swan River
for sticking with this bill. He has worked hard on it. He
brought forward some very good amendments and actually had one
accepted by the government, which in this day and age is
sometimes a strange happening. I congratulate him. It is an
issue that goes back to before his life as the mayor of Dauphin.
I also want to thank him for his tour of the western national
parks. He went to Waterton and met with people and held a really
good grassroots consultation process to enable him to develop the
position he has taken and the position he has helped our party to
take. That is exactly what needs to be done.
One of the problems we see with the bill is that a mandated
consultation process needs to be in place. People who live in
these parks have a right to consult directly with Parks Canada.
They are a little nervous about the way it is structured right
now, to be quite frank. They feel that the minister and the
governor in council have far too many powers. There is a little
mistrust by the people who live and work in the parks of the
government and Parks Canada. That grassroots consultation
process would be very important for the bill to be received
properly and to work properly.
People have worked with me and kept me informed of what is
happening at Waterton Lakes National Park. In particular, Jason
Bruns was one of the first people who talked to me after I was
elected. He is an outdoorsman, he is a fisherman, he enjoys the
park and any time he sees an issue that he thinks I need to be
aware of he certainly brings it to my attention. I appreciate
that. A few weeks ago, on the long weekend in May, when I was in
Waterton for the leaseholders meeting, I met with him and he
toured me around to show me some of the things that he would like
to see changed, and we talked about some of the issues that he
has. He is an avid lover of the park. He enjoys the outdoors
and he feels that certainly protecting the ecological integrity
of our parks is important. However, the people who are best able
to do that are the people who are close to our parks. It is
important that the government and the minister consult with the
people who use and live in these parks. They have the best idea
of how to preserve them and keep them for future generations.
One of the amendments that was brought forward was to deal with
wardens, how they carry out their jobs and the fact that they
should be allowed to carry firearms to protect themselves and to
do their jobs properly. That was defeated. That is unfortunate
because we feel that would give them a certain degree of security
in the process they go through to carry out their duties.
But to get back to the leaseholders, there is a process in place
now whereby the leases in the parks, particularly in Waterton,
which I am most familiar with, are reviewed only once every 10
years.
At the present time the leaseholders are facing a huge increase
in lease amounts.
1355
We feel that the ability to consult with the government on a
more regular basis and with the department would have helped
alleviate some of this. It is important that the process be in
place to give people a chance to bring their ideas forward to be
acted on by the government.
The member for Dauphin—Swan River alluded to some of the unique
situations that exist in the parks. They are not all the same. I
have had letters from people in Jasper asking why they cannot be
treated the same as the people in Waterton and why they cannot be
treated the same as the people in Banff. Each one is different.
Banff has its own town council that runs the affairs there.
It is important that we realize that there is this difference
and that the minister takes the time to consult and not to paint
everybody with the same brush under the same rules, because every
place is unique and different.
The Trans-Canada Highway runs through Banff National Park. That
creates a whole issue of separate concerns to do with wildlife.
The amount of money collected at the Banff gate helps to run the
entire national park system.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that the people who use
the parks, the people who live in the parks, the people who have
businesses in the parks and certainly the visitors who come from
all over the world to enjoy our national parks all need a voice
in the implementation of legislation and the laws that govern
them. We hope that the government recognizes that fact, that it
will honour those views and that it will implement them in the
future.
The Speaker: When the hon. member finishes his discourse
is up to him, but he has 10 minutes for questions and comments.
Before we go to that, in order to give him a chance to get his
thoughts together and to give other members a chance to get their
questions together, I will go to Statements by Members and I will
come back to this 10 minute question and comment period after
question period, unless the member wants to go into debate.
However, we will sort that out.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE LATE GILLES LANDRY
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
was with great sadness that many of us learned of the recent
passing of Mr. Gilles Landry, the Minister of Political and
Public Affairs at our High Commission in London.
Only 48 years of age, Gilles had spent 25 years in the Canadian
diplomatic service. He was an active promoter of both the
Commonwealth and the Francophonie and had previously represented
this country in Abidjan, Ivory Coast and Paris. Gilles was one
of the key people behind the reopening of Canada House.
I had the pleasure of working with Gilles last year and this
year in connection with Sierra Leone. I greatly admired the
intelligence, the hard work and the obvious dedication that he
brought to his work representing this country abroad.
Our foreign service attracts some of the best and the brightest
this country has to offer. Gilles was among the best of the
best.
Our deepest condolences go out to the family, the friends and
the colleagues of Mr. Gilles Landry.
* * *
NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals claim they are the epitome of democracy and
of the consultative process. In reality, autocracy rules
supreme, at least in the heritage department and specifically in
Bill C-27, the Canada national parks act.
No one in Jasper was consulted while drafting Bill C-27, and
this bill will have a serious impact on Jasper and its residents.
Jasper Commerce and Tourism was not consulted, nor was the Jasper
townsite committee.
Roy Everest and Richard Ireland presented briefs to the
committee, but the bill was already in its final form and their
recommendations fell on deaf ears.
The 5,000 residents of Jasper will never be able to make
decisions regarding fire halls, fire trucks or even stop signs.
The minister here in Ottawa will keep a tight-fisted grip on
these and other local issues.
Jasper is the only community in the entire country singled out
in this fashion. Who was consulted? Why, the Sierra Legal
Defence Club. It was not only consulted, but hired by the cops
at heritage. Shame on the dictatorial practices of this Liberal
government.
* * *
CANADA WORLD YOUTH EXCHANGE PROGRAM
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to congratulate the town of Durham on its participation in
the Canada World Youth Exchange Program with Thailand.
1400
This is a seven month program in which young people from each
community spend some time learning the culture and the language
before going back to their respective communities.
Durham is a great little town in Ontario that will show great
hospitality to the students from Thailand. I know that the
experiences shared by the families, the people who participate,
and the students will enrich their lives and make our world a
better place.
* * *
SYRIA
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, people of Syria are in mourning following the sudden
death of President Hafez al-Assad. The funeral of the late
president of Syria was held today at his birthplace, the village
of Quardaha in northern Syria. Dignitaries from around the
world, including our Minister of Foreign Affairs, are paying
their respects to the late leader.
As the first Syrian born Canadian member of parliament, I ask my
colleagues to join me in extending condolences to the people of
Syria and the al-Assad family. I hope that a peaceful transition
of power will contribute to the ongoing peace process in the
Middle East.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians treasure their coastline and sea which are rich in
natural beauty and resources. Each year thousands of oil spills
are reported along the 40,000 kilometres of Atlantic coastline
and many more go unreported. In concert with the navy, the
Canadian forces air crews based in Greenwood, Nova Scotia, and
Comox, British Columbia, help to protect these treasures.
On May 30 the men and women at 14 Wing Greenwood received an
Environment Canada award in recognition of the vigilant
surveillance of Canada's Atlantic coastline and sea approaches
and their remarkable success in tracking, identifying and
photographing polluting ships.
I rise today to recognize the valuable contribution of the 14
Wing Greenwood air crew, as well as 19 Wing Comox, because we and
our children can continue to enjoy the benefits of our natural
marine wonders that remain the envy of the world.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals claim that they have
reformed the grain handling and transportation system. They are
oh, so wrong.
Witness after witness at the agriculture committee hearings and
transportation hearings stated that the only way to fix the
broken system was to introduce true commercial accountability.
The Liberals have ignored this advice.
Almost every witness at committee stated that the deal
negotiated in secret between the Canadian Wheat Board and its
minister would not increase commercial accountability and would
increase the control of the Canadian Wheat Board over grain
transportation.
This is exactly opposite to the recommendations made by the
government's own experts. With this so-called reform package,
the Liberals have guaranteed that the grain handling and
transportation system will fail again as it did during the
1993-94 and 1996-97 crop years. Once again farmers will be
forced to pay for Liberal inadequacies.
* * *
[Translation]
BOMBARDIER
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday we learned some good news relating to Bombardier.
This local company has just landed a $2 billion contract with GE
Capital Aviation Services, or GECAS, for up to 150 regional jets.
The agreement with Bombardier comprises a firm $1.96 billion
order for 50 planes. This is the first significant order from an
aircraft-leasing firm. Included in the contract are 15 50-seater
Regional Jets, 25 70-seaters, and 10 new 90-seaters which are
still being developed.
Deliveries are scheduled to start in the year 2002 and to run
until late 2006. Counting the 100 aircraft on option, the value
of the contract with GECAS will total $5.87 billion.
Our congratulations to the management and workers of this
company, which is a jewel in the economy of Quebec and of Canada,
and our best wishes for the fulfilment of this major contract.
* * *
REGIONAL PRIDE WEEK
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to draw hon. members' attention to the fact that this is
regional pride week in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. It is an
opportunity for all residents of the region to show their
attachment to their history and their culture. The regional flag
and anthem will hold pride of place in the celebrations.
This will be the last time Paul Lemieux will chair the event. As
honorary chairman of regional pride week, he has devoted eight
years to its success. I am sure that his departure will leave a
big empty space in the organization of the event.
On behalf of all the people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, I wish
Mr. Lemieux all the best in his future endeavours. I will take
advantage of this opportunity to also pass my best wishes for an
excellent regional pride week to all the people of
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.
* * *
1405
JOB CREATION
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday,
Statistics Canada announced an unemployment rate of 6.8% for
April, the lowest level since April 1976.
In the past 12 months, the number of full time jobs has
increased significantly—by 3.1%.
These performances are encouraging. They clearly indicate that
the climate remains favourable for investors.
Canada is a country of choice to create jobs and develop
projects for all regions. This picture also means that the
Liberal government's economic and financial policies are
producing solid results. Nearly two million new jobs have been
created under the Liberal government since it took office in
1993.
This is a particularly fine job creation performance.
* * *
[English]
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-18, which enables
judges to impose a life sentence for the serious crime of
impaired driving causing death, completed report stage debate
this morning and will be voted on this evening, clearing the
final hurdle for passage at third reading.
Impaired driving is an issue I have been working on for the last
four and a half years. I thank my colleagues in the Canadian
Alliance for the tremendous support in my efforts. I also thank
all of my colleagues in the House of Commons who helped to bring
this legislation to fruition.
The Canadian Alliance has placed Bill C-18 high on its priority
list for passage before the summer recess. The government leader
has given assurance that the bill will be passed before the
summer recess. The Canadian Alliance, the Canadian public and
government members, I assume, all urge the government to ensure
that this important bill is passed before the House recesses.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR LAC-SAINT-LOUIS
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of this House to the
honour given one of our members recently for his commitment to
environmental issues.
On May 25, our colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis and
chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, was
admitted to the Cercle des Phénix de l'environnement et du
développement durable.
This tribute to our colleague, an eminent architect of
sustainable development, by the entire environmental community of
Quebec crowns many years of commitment to the environment.
Everyone in Quebec will remember that our colleague served as
minister of the environment for Quebec from 1985 to 1988 and
everyone knows that he is the author of Quebec's first
environmental policy focused resolutely on conservation.
In closing, I recall that the basic message of our colleague,
the recipient of the Phénix environment award, is as follows:
“Sustainable development must be the cornerstone of Canada's
economic growth”.
Long life to the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the verdict is in and Albertans do not trust Liberals to
fight against private for profit hospitals. Yesterday Brian
Mason won an Edmonton byelection with almost 60% of the votes, a
convincing victory for the Alberta NDP and a resounding vote of
confidence for the only party that fights against for profit
health care.
The Liberals barely squeaked ahead of the Klein candidate. If
it was not clear to Liberals before it should be clear now.
Canadians want the spirit of the Canada Health Act protected.
In question period yesterday the health minister said that he
would never allow a private for profit health care system. If he
will never allow it, why is bill 11 law? What has he done to
stop for profit hospitals? He is going down in history as the
minister who allowed them.
Albertans know it. They are tired of the minister's syrupy
statements and empty words. They want a real Ralph Klein fighter
so they voted NDP. Congratulations to Brian Mason and his
winning team.
* * *
JASON ARNOTT
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
I rise to pay tribute a great Canadian, Jason Arnott. Jason, who
needs no introduction to hockey fans across the country, happens
to be a local boy from Wasaga Beach where he began his hockey
career in the minor hockey system. He then went on to play for
the Stayner Siskins as well as teams from Lindsay and Oshawa
where he was a member of the 1990 Memorial Cup champions.
Following this he played for the Edmonton Oilers until 1997 when
he joined the New Jersey Devils. Then on June 10, Jason scored
the winning goal during the second period of overtime against the
Dallas Stars in the Stanley Cup finals.
Throughout his incredible career Jason has never lost sight of
his roots. He continues to be a huge supporter of local
charities in Wasaga Beach including minor hockey.
I know I speak on behalf of his parents, Bill and Eileen, the
town of Wasaga Beach, the Parliament of Canada and all Canadians
when I extend congratulation and thanks to Jason Arnott. Today
Canada recognizes him as one of its finest hockey sons. By the
way, Lord Stanley's Cup will soon visit Wasaga Beach. I say
congratulations to Jason.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
NOTE FESTIVAL
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, a
unique musical event, the Note Festival, will be held in my
riding. Music students aged 2 to 97, from all regions of Quebec,
may take part in this friendly competition.
For the ninth year, on June 17, over 300 participants will
entertain 3,000 spectators who will let themselves be carried by
the sound of music.
The purpose of Note Festival is to discover talents and to
provide an opportunity for artists to meet and, more
importantly, to improve, since each participant is evaluated.
It is a great musical party organized with dedication and
competence by an army of volunteers, with the financial support
of socioeconomic and sociocultural partners from the Granby
region.
This great event is the brainchild of Aline Couture Paré, who
has an unconditional love for music and who has been in charge
of the festival since the beginning. That musical event helps
her transmit this love that is carried by each note during this
wonderful festival.
I wish the best of success to the ninth edition of Note
Festival.
* * *
BILL C-20
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-20 has yet to be adopted, but it continues to draw serious
criticism.
Yesterday, Claude Ryan strongly criticized the bill when he
said:
Because it reduces the National Assembly to the rank of an
inferior parliament, because it reflects a deep distrust of the
Quebec democracy, because it suggests that Quebec sovereignists
are seditious people who must be kept under surveillance, this
bill is humiliating for the parliamentarians who sit in Quebec
City and for the people whom they represent.
Even if Bill C-20 is passed by the current Liberal senators and
those whom the Prime Minister will have to appoint to ensure
that it is indeed passed, that will not give it the legitimacy
it lacked when passed by this House.
This gag law will never deprive Quebecers of their right to
choose their destiny, because Quebec is free, and the Quebec
nation is sovereign.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN NURSES ASSOCIATION
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Nurses Association begins this weekend in
Vancouver its biennial convention with the federal Minister of
Health as keynote speaker. Its theme “Nursing in the 21st
Century: Challenge and Change” is timely not only for the
nursing profession but also for Canada's health care system.
Canadians know that when they come face to face with their
health needs, whether in the ER or ICU, the acute or convalescent
ward, the outpatient clinic, community centre or at home, they
come with the reality of availability of access. Nurses play a
critical role as health care providers. We cannot allow as a
nation that their leading role be compromised. Caring and
competence are non-negotiable attributes. Therefore governments
have a duty to provide the needed resources.
Even as the Government of Canada shares a partnership in
commitment to see our health care system attuned to the realities
of the new century, I am confident that the Canadian Nurses
Association will share with all Canadians the wisdom of its
collective experience. Let us wish our nurses success during
their weekend convention.
* * *
CANADIAN EXECUTIVE SERVICE ORGANIZATION
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Executive Service Organization or CESO is a Canadian
volunteer based not for profit organization founded in 1967. Its
mission is to supply Canadian advisers and trainers to emerging
businesses and organizations in Canada and worldwide that cannot
access paid consulting services.
My constituent, Mr. Cornelis Hoogveen, from Rothesay, New
Brunswick, was a CESO volunteer. He went to Slovakia to assist
in the management of a dairy company in need of help. Cornelis
was asked to assess the dairy's operations and marketing and the
co-operation between dairy farmers and processors.
While Cornelis was on site the final stages of privatization
were taking place and his first task involved putting in place a
new company structure. He recommended reducing distribution
costs by streamlining the order department and hiring a
distribution supervisor. A wage increase system was also put in
place and an organizational chart developed.
Cornelis expects that the implementation of his recommendations
and staff training will result in a reduction in duplication and
waste as well as an increase in sales and profits. I thank Mr.
Hoogveen.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today StatsCan confirmed what
Canadians have known for years, that the government is swallowing
up more of their income in taxes than ever before. What does the
government spend it on? Boondoggles, fountains, canoe museums,
hotels, golf courses, and that is just in the Prime Minister's
riding.
What right does the finance minister have to take so much of
what Canadians earn and then squander it away?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the reason the government's revenues are up is that
things are going very well in Canada. There are more people who
are working. There is more economic activity. People's salaries
are up. I hate to say this to the leader of the Canadian
Alliance, but that is good news for Canadians.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is for sure that incomes had to
rise. It is the only way they could afford the taxes really.
The government is spending $15 billion on transfers to health
and $17 billion on grants and contributions. Canadian families
have been forced to finance for example the history of strippers,
a display of French prostitutes, and the porn flick Bubbles
Galore. That is not to everyone's taste.
Why is the finance minister against Canadian families keeping
more of what they earn?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, two-thirds of all of our new spending is in health care,
education and basic research. The issue really is, why did the
Canadian Alliance vote against the increases in the national
child benefit? Why did the Canadian Alliance vote against
increases in preschool child nutrition? Why did the Canadian
Alliance vote against every single measure the government has
brought in to help the middle class in the country and to help
Canadian families?
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, because we do not believe it for some
funny reason. Maybe it is just a drop in the sea to a shipping
magnate but to the average family, $12,000—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Please address each
other by our proper titles.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, the finance minister, his
highness, maybe does not realize that $12,500 is a lot of money
to the average Canadian family.
If the finance minister could convince Canadians that he is
buying better health care or improving the education system,
Canadians might not mind so much, but he has not. He knows that
he has not restored the health funding even to 1993 levels and
the government is running a $5 billion surplus.
Why is the government plundering Canadian families to pay for
bungles, bubbles and boondoggles?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the Canadian Alliance would have us
believe that her party is interested in health care. Let me say
that we were surfing the web the other day and we found the
Canadian Alliance website. We looked under health and I will
read what it has under health, “There are no current articles
for this category or department”. The page is blank.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I remind members to please not
use props either in questions or answers.
1420
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister needs to
remember that it is Canadian entrepreneurs and Canadian
businesses that fuel the economy. It is the hard work of
individual Canadians that provides not only family income but the
government's income. There is a limit to their generosity.
Government is confiscating more and delivering less. Worse, the
Liberals do not even blink at a billion dollar bungle.
Perhaps the finance minister could tell Canadian families why he
needs so much of their money.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the last budget brought in personal income tax
reductions and unemployment insurance reductions of $54 billion
out of a total of $58 billion.
I would be prepared to defend on any podium in the country our
tax proposals against the flat tax of the Reform Party, which is
a tax designed to do only one thing and that is to flatten the
middle class.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is
certainly an equal opportunity tax man. It does not matter
whether people are rich or poor as long as he gets his money.
Robin Hood used to take money from the rich to give to the poor.
The finance minister takes money from the rich and the poor to
give to the human resources minister.
Why should Canadian families give the government so much of
their money so the finance minister can give it to the human
resources minister for boondoggles?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on July 1 of this year, within a couple of weeks, the
middle income tax rate will drop from 26% to 24%. The full
benefits of indexation will come into play. Let us look at what
that party would offer. According to Catherine Ford of the
Calgary Herald:
I first encountered the snake oil selling tactics promoting a flat
tax years ago in the U.S. It was flawed, a tired, discredited
and inherently unfair tax scheme that even the powerful right
wing—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. leader of the Bloc
Quebecois.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, about
ten days ago, the Prime Minister jumped up in the House to
reject a parental insurance program proposed by Quebec.
Clearly, he wants all the visibility for this project.
We have now learned of the existence of a legal opinion dated
March 2 advising that he should negotiate with Quebec.
Will the Prime Minister tell us whether or not he was aware of
the existence of this legal opinion when he rose in the House to
reject negotiations with Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
three years ago, we held negotiations on this topic which
produced nothing. The government decided, and it announced very
clearly in the throne speech and in the February budget, that it
would extend benefits from six months to twelve in order to help
people on parental leave.
That was very clearly established. What I wonder today is why
the Government of Quebec is speaking up after the decisions have
been made. If it thinks it can help people who need more than
we are offering, if it has the money to do that, it is welcome
to do so. That will be just fine with us.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there
was a legal opinion; that was the question. There are also
other legal opinions.
Will the Prime Minister respect his own legislation, including
section 69? Will he negotiate with Quebec, or is the law no
longer of interest in this place? What the Prime Minister is
telling us is that he is the law.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there were negotiations that produced nothing. They withdrew.
From that point on, the government, which had complied with the
legislation, was forced to assume its responsibilities. In the
interests of good social policy, we decided that it was very
important to extend the period during which parental leave
benefits are paid. Everyone was pleased with this measure at
the time of the throne speech and the budget speech.
Only as the program is about to begin does Quebec suddenly wake
up.
1425
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning
the national assembly unanimously passed a motion supporting the
parental insurance proposal by the Government of Quebec.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that, if he persists in
remaining as stubborn as he has since the beginning of this
affair, he will once again be acting contrary to the unanimous
will of the Quebec national assembly as well as a broad
consensus of Quebecers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
established our position on this matter very clearly, a year ago
already.
If the benefit we are paying is insufficient, as Quebec claims,
if 55% of earnings is not enough, it is fine with us if they
want to bring it up to 75%. We shall praise them for it, if
they have the money to do so.
What we want is to treat everyone equally, and the money we will
be using is already in place for it. If they want to use their
own resources to raise the benefits, that is fine.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Prime Minister again: Is he capable of grasping that the motion
passed unanimously by the national assembly is not in support of
improved employment insurance benefits, but of a parental
insurance program focussing on the future and aimed at all of
the young families of Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if the provincial government wants to have that program, it is
free to do so.
We have a responsibility under the Employment Insurance Act.
For years now, we have been providing those covered by
employment insurance with maternity benefits. Now, we are
improving those benefits.
If there are other social programs the Government of Quebec
wishes to improve, all the better for them. We have our
responsibility under the Employment Insurance Act and we are
continuing to improve what we have been doing since—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
* * *
[English]
POVERTY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, recent
income statistics show a growing gap, a disturbing gap, between
Canadians with high incomes and those with lower and middle
incomes. StatsCan documents that government policies are
aggravating this problem. While European countries are
relatively successful in fighting poverty, the U.S. record is
abysmal. Why? Because economic growth alone will not defeat
poverty. Better income support and child care programs are
needed.
Why does the government insist on mimicking the American
approach?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in fact we have worked very hard on that. Some of the
statistics do not take into account the fact that we have
instituted in Canada a national child benefit program. We are
developing with the provinces a national children's agenda. We
plan to lengthen employment insurance benefits for parents to 12
months. We have many, many other programs that are in place at
this moment that were in the Speech from the Throne and in the
last budget. We are making a lot of progress.
At the same time Canadians now have more revenue than they had
before. There were a lot of changes in the last budget to help
the lower—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if this
government were serious about defeating poverty, it would be
willing to learn the lessons in the recent income report. If we
adopt U.S. style tax policy, then we are going to get U.S. style
social policy and the growing income gaps that come with it.
Sadly, that is the goal the government is pursuing. As UNICEF
reports, countries that make up their minds to tackle poverty
succeed, but in Canada, the odds are that a child of a lone
parent is poor.
How can the government be so complacent about its record on
poverty?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been one of the items that we have devoted a lot
of time to. Statistics Canada yesterday reported that now our
policies are beginning to pay off and said that fewer Canadian
families are living in poverty today than there were some years
ago. We are making progress but the job is not over. We have to
keep working at it.
* * *
1430
BANKS
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister proposes in his financial services reform bill
to grant himself unfettered power to say yes or no to bank
mergers. If merger proponents pass all the hurdles of his public
impact review process, will he say yes to the mergers?
The Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. I see the
minister is on his feet. If he wishes to respond he may do so.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member misunderstands the nature of
the reforms. The fact is that ultimately the Government of
Canada has the right to make the decision and in fact must make a
decision either yea or nay, and obviously that voice is expressed
through that of the Minister of Finance.
The fact is that in this particular process we have introduced a
number of steps, including the mandatory public hearings by the
House of Commons finance committee and the advice from the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Competition
Bureau.
I can assure the hon. member that any decisions would be very
well taken after a full examination in the public interest.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have waited seven years for this government to
introduce its financial services sector reform package which will
not see royal assent until at least a year and may in fact be
derailed by a general election.
With the changes in the global financial services sector
occurring at web speed, why is this government moving at a
snail's pace?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is certainly not moving at a snail's
pace. We intend to push as aggressively as we possibly can,
obviously subject to the prerogatives of parliament, to make sure
that this legislation is passed as quickly as possible.
However, we do want to have the public debate on the
legislation. That is why fact we commissioned the MacKay report
about 18 months to 2 years ago. We wanted to examine every
possible avenue open to make sure that on the one hand our banks
are able to grow as much as possible and, on the other hand, that
our consumers are protected as much as possible.
* * *
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it looks like the finance
minister has been getting some lessons from the human resources
minister.
It turns out that the human resources minister is not the only
one with a dodgy set of books. An internal finance department
audit wonders whether the finance department's contracting
practices could “be defensible if disclosed in the public eye”.
I would like to ask the finance minister if he can tell the
House why his department's contracting practices are not publicly
defensible?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the problem is of course that the hon. member opposite
perhaps read the newspaper report. What he should have done was
to have read the report of the internal audit.
If I can just quote, it states:
Our review of CI&S controllable expenses indicated they were
generally processed in compliance with applicable policies and
procedures.
We also observed a desire on the part of CI&S staff to do things
right.
All professional service contracts adequately demonstrates
CI&S's organizational needs.
In other words, there were obviously defects in what the hon.
member was pointing to but overwhelmingly the report was positive
for CI&S.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, they wonder “if the
contracting practices would be defensible if disclosed in the
public eye”. There is a problem there.
We are perhaps talking about some suspect contracting services
in the Department of Finance. This minister is the keeper of the
cash, the taker of our taxes. If there is suspect in his
department, how can any Canadian trust anything the government
says or does?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question just simply
does not bear any kind of scrutiny.
Let me give one more quote from the report, following up on what
the member said. It states:
In all professional service contracts reviewed, the fact that the
contractors had excellent qualifications for the tasks defined
was adequately demonstrated.
* * *
[Translation]
BANKING
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec
government, through its Minister of Finance, is demanding
legislative guarantees from the federal government regarding the
conditions that must exist before authorizing a takeover of
Quebec banks by a buyer.
However, in the 871 page document tabled by the federal Minister
of Finance, there is no indication that such guarantees exist.
Will the Minister of Finance confirm that the only guarantee
that exists in his bill is the discretionary power he is
assuming, and nothing else?
1435
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the case of the acquisition of a bank, such as the National
Bank, the criteria will be exactly the same—and this is provided
in the legislation—as those for major bank mergers.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is no
guarantee in the act to protect Quebecers.
Why should we feel confident? Why should we be reassured about
the possible acquisition of Quebec banks by a potential buyer,
since the only guarantee we have is the decision of the federal
Minister of Finance or of his successors? Mr. Speaker, you will
agree that there is nothing reassuring in this situation.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
just said that the criteria in the case of an acquisition are
exactly the same as in the case of major bank mergers.
Now, if the hon. member thinks that we should have more
elaborate criteria for major bank mergers, his colleagues are
certainly free to make that suggestion in committee.
But I am telling the House that, in the case of an acquisition
and of the criteria, if not the process, things would be exactly
the same as in the case of a bank merger.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, here is HRDC's idea of a good
business venture in Strathroy, Ontario: One, buy a motorhome;
two, fill it with computer equipment; three, register the
motorhome in an individual's name; four, pay out $127,000 in
salaries with no job descriptions; and five, park it in a garage
and terminate the project.
How did this boondoggle on wheels benefit taxpayers?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to this particular project, I
can say that it is under review.
In the context of the questions and commentary of members of
that party opposite, it is clear that from their point of view
they think it is a boondoggle for Canadians to invest in
improving the literacy levels of Canadians. They think it is a
boondoggle for Canadians to invest in ensuring that Canadians
with disabilities can participate in the economy. They think it
is a boondoggle for us to support aboriginal people in getting
the training they need to participate in the economy.
After five months, that is the result of the discussions here.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, we think it
is a boondoggle that taxpayers are buying people motorhomes. That
is what we think.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. chief opposition
whip may begin his question.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers deserve to
know where all their money is being spent. The original proposal
was approved for a $30,000 lease of a motorhome. The used RV was
in fact purchased for $30,000 and subsequently registered in an
individual's name. I do not think this needs to reviewed. I
think it needs to be investigated properly by the RCMP.
Has the HRDC minister decided to make a gift of this RV, or has
it been sold so taxpayers can recover at least part of their
investment?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat that in this particular case a
forensic audit is under way.
I want to make clear that hon. members opposite focus on
isolated cases and bring to the attention of the Canadian people
individual grants and contributions, while at the same time
making it absolutely clear that from their point of view there is
nothing that the Government of Canada can do to help those in
need. That is the real message here, and I think it has become
very clear to Canadians that this is the approach of that party.
* * *
[Translation]
BANKING
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could
the Minister of Finance tell us where his bill mentions the
conditions governing the ownership of up to 65% of National Bank
shares by a single shareholder, the conditions on the
maintenance of available services, the maintenance of
professional positions or those requiring a particular expertise
in Quebec, the benefits for the economy of Quebec and its
technological development and the benefits for Quebec's
financial sector?
Where in the bill did he provide for these assessment criteria?
1440
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the member would care to look at clause 396, he will find there
a list, which, following another determination, will tell him
what is included in the public interest. As I have said to Mr.
Landry, the public interest involves really all the issues he
raised in his letter.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can
the minister tell us who will decide whether it is in the public
interest and in the interest of Quebecers? Who will decide
which conditions will be met? What evaluation criteria and what
sort of analysis will be used? Will he not be the one
ultimately deciding? Is he not looking more and more like a
minister in a banana republic?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Jacques Parizeau's puppet has to know that the Canadian
government will decide.
* * *
[English]
GUN REGISTRY
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime
Minister.
In 1995 the justice minister tabled a document titled
“Financial Framework for Bill C-68” that projected a deficit of
$2 million over five years for implementation of the gun
registration scheme.
It is now five years later and the deficit is $320 million. That
is 150 times larger than the deficit first projected.
What is responsible for this huge waste of money, the previous
minister's ridiculous estimate or the current minister's
mismanagement of the scheme?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I should think that most
Canadians are now at a point where they believe it is time for
the Canadian Alliance to realize that this is an issue about
public safety. That is why the vast majority of Canadians
support gun control and that is why we are able to reassure
Canadians that this program is delivering safer communities and
safer streets.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I wish somebody would take the
batteries out of the Liberal pink bunny that keeps spending,
spending, spending.
One would think that a deficit 150 times larger than expected
would cause the Liberals concern. Now we find out that
everything is a mess at the gun registry headquarters and $129
million for this year is not enough.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We all deserve to be able to
hear the question. I ask members once again to please reserve
their comments.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, we do not even know
what the latest advertizing and outreach blitz will cost, and
only 5% of guns have been registered. If we reached this huge
deficit with only a fraction of the guns being registered, how
many more hundreds of millions will have to be spent, or is the
justice minister trying to divert attention away from the HRDC
minister with her own billion dollar boondoggle?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We have heard the question
and I believe we owe it to ourselves to hear the answer.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we
do not spend a lot of time worrying about conspiracy theories
that may float around in the minds of the Canadian Alliance
members.
We on this side of the House are concerned about the safety of
Canadians. That is why this government is committed to ensuring
that we have a gun control program that works for all Canadians.
Hon. members might be interested to know that, for example, 750
licence applications have been refused and 970 licences have been
revoked from individuals who were deemed not eligible to have
them. That is about public safety.
* * *
1445
[Translation]
PORT OF MONTREAL
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Port of Montreal's board of directors is meeting this
evening to decide whether or not to sell the Bickerdike pier to
the Technodôme group for a project worth $1.4 billion which has
the support of the City of Montreal, the Government of Quebec and
many leaders of Quebec's business community.
Since the only position not yet known to date is that of the
Prime Minister, will he tell us where his government stands on
this major project for Montreal involving 14,000 jobs? Not 14,
but 14,000.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the decision on the future of the Port of Montreal is in
the hands of the authorities directing affairs at the Port of
Montreal. There will be a meeting this evening and we await
their decision.
* * *
[English]
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
every summer thousands of students find jobs, but others have a
difficult time getting a summer job.
Can the Secretary of State for Children and Youth inform the
House what initiatives she is taking to promote summer employment
for students?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has a number of
measures in place.
Overall this year we will spend $120 million in our attempts to
hire students. Last year we hoped to achieve the hiring of
60,000 students. We exceeded that number by 10,000 last summer.
We are hoping that employers who have not taken advantage of this
program will do so and hire a student.
* * *
FIREARMS
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as of June 4 the Canadian Firearms
Centre had issued only 183,353 personal licences and had a
backlog of about 144,000 applications in process or awaiting
attention.
At that rate, even using the justice department's lowball
estimate of three million gun owners in Canada, it would take
about 25 years to complete the licensing process.
I ask the justice minister, what is going to happen on the
deadline date of December 31 of this year?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response let me simply
suggest to the hon. member and others across the way that perhaps
they should stop being pawns of the gun lobby and get concerned
about the safety of the nation.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister should some day
answer a question.
On June 4 only 382,498 firearms had been registered under the
new system and about 103,000 were in process. Depending upon how
many firearms are actually in circulation, completion of that
process will take somewhere between 18 and 50 years.
How many thousands of employees does the minister estimate will
be required to supplement the 1,600 who are already employed in
this idiotic fiasco?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would it not be refreshing if
the official opposition actually got behind Canadians and
supported gun control and public safety?
Would it not be useful if this party, as opposed to attempting
to undermine Canadians' confidence in the gun licensing and
registry program, actually worked with Canadians, their families
and their communities to support this program?
* * *
BANKS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Today's financial services bill concentrates more and more power
in the hands of the Minister of Finance: the power to make
regulations, the power to decide on ownership, and the power to
decide about mergers.
All of this comes at the expense of parliamentary democracy,
making this place less and less relevant to the Canadian people.
1450
Can the minister explain why hoarding all that extra power in
his hands, in effect making himself a banking czar in this
country, is in the public interest?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is not the case.
First of all, the Minister of Finance is accountable to
parliament.
Second, the bulk of the areas in which his discretion lies has
to do with the holding companies that are permitted investments
in that area as opposed to other places.
In terms of parliament, the hon. member will know that under the
previous legislation the Minister of Finance had total
discretion. Under the new legislation parliamentary hearings
will be mandatory.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, under the new legislation the Minister of Finance still
has the final power, as he knows.
I want to ask him about rural communities. Banks are important
to people and small businesses in rural communities. Yet this
legislation only requires six months' notice before they pull
out. In six months they are gone.
Why does the minister not bring in legislation that would make
it a requirement that the banks not be allowed to close a branch
in a rural community and that as long as that branch is making a
profit in a community it should stay in the community?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the one hand we have brought in legislation that will
make it eminently possible for a number of new banks, including
credit unions, to provide smaller communities with a great deal
more access to banking.
We have also brought in guaranteed access to bank accounts. We
have now provided a guaranteed low cost account for Canadians.
In terms of closure, as the hon. member said, we are already
finding that mandatory delays on closure so that the communities
and the banks can come together are bearing great fruit.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, things
must not only be right, they must appear to be right. For
obvious reasons I take any discussion about the frigate program
very seriously, as it is dear to my heart.
When contracts are being bid on for the frigates and DND
officials are leaking sensitive documents to certain companies,
that is not right.
With this unacceptable practice, will the Minister of National
Defence tell the House why he will not have an independent RCMP
investigation into these leaks?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have confidence that the provost
marshal, General Samson, will get to the bottom of this matter.
We will soon see from the results of the investigation what will
be done in this case. We take this matter most seriously.
I do note that most of the contracts were investigated and most
of the work was done during the time that the hon. member's party
was in government.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, all I
can say to the minister on that one is, like his shipbuilding
policy today, that statement simply does not float.
Throughout the situation of leaks the Minister of National
Defence has praised the frigates built in the Saint John shipyard
and the Quebec shipyard, and rightfully so, he should praise
them. However, the Department of National Defence and the
companies involved in the frigate program have seen their
reputations tarnished as a result of charges not being laid.
Why will the minister not do an independent RCMP investigation?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this matter is fully under investigation.
As I indicated a few moments ago, we want to get to the bottom of
the matter.
Regarding the allegation about the two companies getting
information, neither one of them got any contracts whatsoever.
This matter is still being fully examined and will be reported
on fully. Meanwhile, the investigation is still very much
afloat, even though the Tories certainly sunk in their time in
dealing with it.
* * *
STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of Woman.
We have heard reports that at the recent Beijing +5 United
Nations conference on gender equality, Canada's agenda was narrow
in scope and addressed only the needs of women in our country.
1455
What did we accomplish not only for women in Canada, but for
women around the world, specifically those in developing
countries, the women and girls in those countries who are in
extreme need in many cases?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada took to the Beijing +5
United Nations conference an extensive list of issues that we
felt would not only benefit Canada, but specifically women of the
developing world; issues like how the diversity of ethnicity and
race and poverty cause trafficking in women and children, cause
forced marriages for girls of eight years old and cause the
buying and selling of women and children in the world. We
brought issues to the table like armed conflict and land mines,
concerns about the fact that HIV and AIDS are decimating women
and villages around the world. Those are the issues Canada
brought to the conference.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
we seem to have a contradiction. The Minister of Health says he
will spend more money on health care. The Prime Minister says
that enough money has been spent on health care. Canadians on
waiting lists deserve to know. Who should they believe, the
Minister of Health who wants to spend more money, or the Prime
Minister who says they have spent enough?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians know better than to listen to the Canadian Alliance
when it comes to health care, the party that would walk away from
the Canada Health Act and give us American style, two tier
medicine.
The Prime Minister has made it quite clear that we want to reach
common ground with the provinces and have a common vision for the
future of health care. We will be there with more money in
transfers for health care. In addition to the 25% increase in
cash transfers over the last two years, we are prepared to invest
more to improve the Canadian health care system to provide
quality services to all Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in 1997, a crown prosecutor called on the sister-in-law of a
vice-president of CINAR to validate the evidence gathered against
this firm by the RCMP.
Will the Minister of Justice stop hiding behind the RCMP
investigation, admit that this situation is ridiculous, and
order a new internal investigation into this matter so that we
may learn who took such an incredible decision and, more to the
point, why?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before,
information came to the attention of the crown prosecutor on June
6, 2000. That information was turned over to the RCMP
immediately.
Let me reassure the hon. member that in fact I am in the process
of investigating when the crown prosecutor came into possession
of this information and other facts surrounding this event. Let
me reassure the hon. member that anything, any information that
came into the crown prosecutor's possession, was turned over to
the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East.
* * *
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government's declining support for post-secondary education is
creating havoc for students and institutions alike. Not only are
students hurting from unprecedented high debt loads, but the
government's new research chairs will actually widen the gap
between have and have not universities, with three universities
taking up close to one-third of the program.
Will the minister acknowledge that accessibility is being
seriously undermined? Will he explain why the research chairs
favour a few and neglect the majority?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, the research chairs represent the biggest
single investment in excellence in Canadian universities in
generations. There are 2,000 chairs across Canada. There is not
a university in this country that is not astonished at the number
of chairs they have compared to what they had two years ago.
Secondly, the member mentioned declining support for
post-secondary education. What does she think about? We have
the Canada Foundation for Innovation. We are making the Networks
of Centres of Excellence a permanent program. There are the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Canadian research
chairs program. This government and this Prime Minister have
been the best at—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Shefford.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, according to
the UNICEF report that came out today, 47 million children in
developed countries are living in poverty. Canada occupies the
No. 17 position in a list of 23 industrialized nations.
The reason for Canada's low standing is that one child in five
lives in poverty. Even though this government has passed
various budget measures, the problem of poverty still persists.
Will the Prime Minister make up his mind to take real measures
to eliminate our children's poverty now?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we welcome the UNICEF report. Very
clearly it suggests to all governments in Canada that we have to
do better by our youngest citizens.
I hope the House will recognize that the report was based on
1994 data. We hope that the work we have undertaken with the
provinces, particularly in the area of the national child
benefit, will provide better results in subsequent reports.
Clearly we want to continue to work with other jurisdictions in
support of Canadian children. That is why last week I spent time
with my counterpart focusing specifically on the issue of
Canada's children and early childhood development.
* * *
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: A number of visitors are with us today.
Members may receive them after I introduce each person or each
group of persons. First I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in our gallery of His Excellency Borys Tarasiuk,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in our gallery of two of our commissioners from the
Territories: Glenna Hansen, Commissioner of the Northwest
Territories, and Peter Irniq, Commissioner of Nunavut.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in our gallery of two members of the New Brunswick
Legislature: my brother Speaker, the Hon. Bev Harrison, Speaker
of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, and his colleague,
the Hon. Kim Jardine, Minister of the Environment and Local
Government of New Brunswick.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[English]
CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, an
act respecting the national parks of Canada, be read the third
time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When debate ended
the member for Lethbridge had some time left but he has indicated
he will not use the rest of his time.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed
a pleasure for me to rise before the House to participate in
third and final reading of Bill C-27, an act respecting the
national parks of Canada. We are talking about the national
parks of Canada, which means that they belong to all Canadians
and are for the benefit of all Canadians.
One of the real concerns I had with this government bill was
that I believed the rights of some Canadians were being
overlooked while the interests of others were being put forward
in a very positive manner. I was concerned that the commercial
interests within our parks communities were being ignored as the
government focused greater attention on preserving the ecological
integrity of our existing national parks. This increased focus
on environmental issues relegated the concerns of our local
entrepreneurs to the back burner.
I believe we could protect ecological integrity without having
to sacrifice existing commercial interests. I believe the
interests of both can coexist given the willingness of each side
to work together for the benefit of our national parks and those
who depend upon them for enjoyment.
It was for this reason I introduced an amendment to subclause
10(1) that specifically called for the inclusion of commercial
interest among the groups that the minister should enter into
agreements with for the purpose of carrying out the act. Although
the government did not specifically adhere to the wording of my
amendment it nevertheless amended the section to make it all
inclusive, and it now includes commercial interests.
Another major concern brought forward by a number of witnesses
who appeared before the committee was that the federal government
could have terminated leases or failed to renew leases without
having to justify its reasoning to the affected individuals. In
effect, there was no recourse, no mechanism available for appeal
by these individuals whose properties were effectively being
confiscated by the federal government.
Our party insisted that the bill include a clause which would
demand that any property to be reclaimed by the government be
done only if there were just cause. These individuals are
entitled to some kind of compensation in the event their leases
are not renewed. Therefore I am pleased that the government
recognized the seriousness of this issue by reinstating the
provisions contained within the Expropriation Act.
1510
[Translation]
I want to congratulate my colleagues who sit with me on the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I especially want to
acknowledge the efforts of my colleague, the member for
Portneuf, whose amendments will give the committee more time to
study the extension or the creation of future parks. I also
want to mention the efforts of his colleague from Manicouagan
who made sure the opinions of the Mingan Archipelago residents
would be taken into account.
[English]
I congratulate the member for Churchill River for introducing
his amendment to delete subclause 7.3 which would have limited
debate on a motion to concur in amendments to our national parks
system to only three hours. That would have been a bad precedent
to be set, the ability to legislate closure or the time allocated
to debate a piece of legislation. I am very happy that change
took place.
Throughout our deliberations one of the concerns I had was
trying to ensure that residents living within our national parks
were provided with an opportunity to voice their concerns about
the future direction of their local communities. This concern
was shared by all opposition members who through a number of
proposed amendments tried to draw the government's attention to
their need to have a voice in any future decision making.
For example, my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River introduced
amendments at report stage that would have called for the
inclusion of a “local government body” during any negotiations
on the future of our parks communities. Similar amendments were
also introduced at committee by me and the member from Churchill.
Unfortunately the federal government refused the inclusion of any
wording that referred to a local government body for fear, I
would think, of creating another Banff.
As I mentioned during report stage, and I will repeat it again
at third reading, I regret that the member for Dauphin—Swan
River opted not to actively participate in the debate of these
amendments during clause by clause deliberations at committee.
Instead he opted to introduce his own amendments during report
stage. His knowledge of parks communities, particularly having
lived and operated near a national park for many years, would
have provided all of us at committee very helpful insights into
the unique problems facing individuals who reside within or just
adjacent to our national parks.
I commend the member for Dauphin—Swan River for introducing an
amendment accepted by the government that secures access to a
traditional source of fresh water emanating from our national
parks which flows into adjacent communities. This amendment was
particularly important to the residents of Dauphin who have
depended upon water from the Riding Mountain National Park since
the early 1900s.
[Translation]
The priority of this government is undoubtedly to protect our
national parks. We are all aware of the problems existing in
our national parks. Many studies have been commissioned by the
federal government and, each time, the consensus was that our
parks are in jeopardy.
The federal government could no longer ignore the results of
these studies. Something had to be done before the integrity of
our national parks was imperilled for ever.
Just like most Canadians, I want to protect our national parks
for future generations. As parliamentarians, we must take the
appropriate measures to protect our parks, for our children and
for our children's children.
[English]
The Progressive Conservative Party has a long history of wanting
to protect and preserve representative areas of our unique and
wonderful ecosystem. As I have mentioned before, Canada's first
Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, created our first national
park when in 1885 his Conservative government designated 26
square kilometres around the hot mineral springs near what is now
the town of Banff, declaring it a national treasure.
Sir John A. Macdonald began a legacy that successive governments
have continued to build upon. He recognized the intrinsic beauty
of Canada's natural environment. It is this beauty that we are
trying to protect in Bill C-27. Is it perfect? Far from it.
1515
Will this piece of legislation respond to the need to protect
the ecological integrity of our national parks? I personally
believe it will go a long way to help preserve for generations to
come the natural beauty we are so fortunate to have here in
Canada.
The bill does not address all the concerns that were expressed
before the committee. Residents in our national park
communities, particularly in Jasper, are still concerned that
their voices are not being heard by the Liberal government. The
success of Bill C-27 will depend largely upon the goodwill of the
federal government and particularly the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
Having said that, I can understand why the residents of Jasper
are concerned. The government has failed to demonstrate any
goodwill in its past dealings with the residents of Jasper. It is
imperative that the government approach future negotiations with
our park communities in a co-operative manner and not with the
confrontational approach that has poisoned relations between
Parks Canada officials and the local residents for years.
As I have said, the bill is not perfect. However I believe it
goes a long way in helping the government maintain existing parks
while also speeding up the process of creating new national
parks. I suggest that we support Bill C-27.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-27, the Canada national
parks act.
This is the final stage in the House of Commons legislative
process where members of parliament can speak on the bill before
it leaves this House to go to the other place. This may be the
last time that the House of Commons reviews the national parks
act for many years. I believe that for parliamentarians our
national parks should be above politics. They are a trust for
this and future generations of Canadians.
As stated by the parliamentary secretary, a high degree of
co-operation existed during the legislative review by the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I would like to state
our appreciation for the outstanding levels of co-operation
during the committee hearings and the support of Parks Canada
personnel throughout the legislative process. I also wish to
acknowledge the chair of the standing committee.
It was very important to overcome several shortcomings in the
legislation. A good example of where Bill C-27 was strengthened
by the committee working together right from the very start was
on the definition of ecological integrity. Many members were
surprised to find that there was no definition for the mandate of
Parks Canada on ecological integrity.
Most opposition parties put forward a definition found in the
ecological integrity panel report and the government put forward
its own definition of ecological integrity. It was a definition
that could have been construed or interpreted as simplified or
weak. The committee members from both sides of the House, with
the assistance of Parks Canada and experts, were able to hammer
out a suitable compromise on a proper and adequate definition.
The final agreed upon definition reads as follows:
“Ecological integrity” means, with respect to a park, a
condition that is determined to be characteristic of its natural
region and likely to persist, including abiotic components and
the composition and abundance of native species and biological
communities, rates of change and supporting processes.
This is quite a definition. There is a reason why I raised the
example of co-operation that transcends political boundaries. The
respect for Canada's wilderness treasures has led to a stronger
bill than the version that was first tabled in the House. The
ecological panel spent several years identifying and describing
the risks that parks face. “Parks are not islands” was the
panel's rallying cry.
There were other areas in the bill where improvements were made
and others where improvements were not made at all. My
colleagues have raised the necessity for improving community
consultations, which I will address in a moment.
For now I will speak on proposed clause 8(3) which was defeated
and which I hope the other place will discuss.
The report stage Motion No. 3 proposed by the NDP would have
addressed the concerns put forward by the Canadian Nature
Federation and some committee members. Those concerns were that
many of the threats to Canada's national parks are from
developments and land use decisions external to the national park
boundaries.
1520
Indeed as the ecological panel stated, parks are not islands.
There is a growing appreciation and need for Parks Canada to
work with adjacent landowners and decision makers to try and
ensure the complementary management of national parks and
adjacent lands.
Parks Canada must be able to provide its information and
knowledge of greater park ecosystems to any authority or body,
environmental assessment panels, et cetera, to ensure that the
decisions account for their possible impact on these nationally
significant landscapes.
Parliament is ultimately responsible for the national parks act,
for ensuring that the national parks are passed on unimpaired for
the enjoyment of future generations. It is our duty as
parliamentarians to do our best to protect this country and our
citizens.
Twice now, in 1988 and today, parliament has directed the
minister and Parks Canada to make the restoration and maintenance
of ecological integrity of Canada's national parks the first
priority in all management decisions. If these goals that
parliament has set out are to be met, then the men and women who
manage our national parks must be confident in the fact that
parliament fully expects them to participate in the decision
making processes that are reasonably expected to affect the
ecological integrity of national parks.
The NDP motion would have assisted in this noble effort which is
of great importance to all Canadians. The amendment sought to
provide park managers with the assurance that while they may have
no jurisdiction over land use decisions outside the parks, we do
expect them to provide the best information and advice to those
land use processes reviewing developments outside those parks.
Only by participating in such forums can we expect Parks Canada
and other landowners to work co-operatively to achieve the
conservation of the parks landscape both inside and outside the
boundaries in such a way that native species survive and human
aspirations and benefits from the natural places are realized.
The improvements to the bill are substantial and no bill is
perfect. However, we are disappointed that the government voted
against the amendment.
Another amendment we would like to see in the future is the Bill
C-27 definition of ecological integrity included in the Parks
Canada Agency Act. This would provide absolute clarity in the
agency's mandate. When parliament debated the agency act in the
first session of the 36th Parliament, there was no definition of
ecological integrity, although the term can be found in this bill
now. Let us clarify it in both acts.
Of particular note for future discussion was a proposed
amendment for clarifying “no net negative environmental impact”
as part of the governor in council regulations and powers in
relation to development. This was a written witness submission
that followed the somewhat hurried committee hearings, a point to
provide assurance to developers and communities that this
expression would apply evenly and fairly, to ensure the heritage
minister's commitment to no net negative environmental impact was
not misunderstood by any cabinet minister in the future,
especially if it is related to a new park for example in Atlantic
Canada or in the northern regions.
I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary and Parks
Canada staff for a particular improvement made to Bill C-27
during the committee stage. Witnesses and my colleague the
member for Yukon raised specific concerns on the traditional and
sacred gathering of objects and materials in national parks. The
committee made a specific change for clarification in clause 25
to avoid a misunderstanding of the definition of trafficking in
the bill, for example, to avoid traditional bartering of
medicinal herbs as being defined as a crime.
The committee also struck down an attempt to limit the debate on
the parks amendments to three hours. The NDP and most members of
parliament are against time allocation and limitations on free
speech and debate. Committee members agreed and the limitation
on debate, a dangerous precedent for other legislation in this
House, was defeated in committee.
My colleagues, this point brings me to a constant concern for
this bill. As elected officials it is our duty to represent our
constituents, our ridings and the majority views that these
special places in Canada hold.
1525
As stated by my colleagues, the recognition of parks communities
was an important issue throughout the debate and hearings for the
national parks act which led to this bill.
Prince Albert National Park is located in the Churchill River
constituency. The community of Waskesiu in turn is located in
the park, one of seven identified parks communities in Canada.
Representatives are elected by the communities to participate in
the Parks Canada process.
We acknowledge that the government in clause 12 of the bill
drew attention to and recognizes the representatives of parks
communities. This is an important step forward but the efforts
should not have been limited there. At no time in the future
should the important contributions that the residents, Canadian
citizens, play in Canada parks development, maintenance and
future direction be ignored.
In Waskesiu an elected community representative committee
consists of people like Shelley Funk, Peter Strassen and Hervé
Langlois working with Parks Canada constantly. There is a great
working relationship with Parks Canada, especially with
Superintendent Bill Fisher. Our office appreciates his hands-on
and progressive approach, and his honesty and sincerity which are
a reflection on Parks Canada's history and professional standards
that Canadians have grown to expect and treasure.
The degree of respect held by committee members, Shelley, Peter
and Hervé in Waskesiu, should be considered no differently.
Tom Lee, the CEO of Parks Canada, stated on May 30:
First of all I would like to state before the committee because
Waskesiu does have concerns and they have written me that this is
a terrific organization to work with, they're supportive of the
park, they're valued. We want to see that relationship
maintained and we think they're important, we know they're
important.
The NDP acknowledges that an effort was made by the reference in
clause 12 but still maintains that the government could have gone
further in recognizing parks communities. We do not state that
more municipal power authorities were necessary, but more fair
and just acknowledgement was required. Removing Jasper and
leaving Banff in the bill was a political issue at best.
Community buy-in and participation in the new direction of
saving our parks and not just limiting operations to a
cost recovery Disneyland theme park approach is an absolute
necessity. Parks communities such as Waskesiu have come a long
way in recent years, overcoming distrust and shock at the degree
of cutbacks inflicted during the government's slash and dash
deficit years in the mid-1990s.
We have come a long way since my friend Cec Allen played on the
shores of Kingsmere as a child, and watched as a decision from
Ottawa removed the summer shacks that local residents enjoyed
just because Ottawa's perception was that they were not pretty or
aesthetic.
Jasper representatives described an emergency response vehicle
ordered via the cookie-cutter approach in Ottawa that did not
fit into the fire hall. That put people's lives at risk and Parks
Canada and the community to shame. Communities are there daily
and should be respected and heard. Then these blunders would not
appear. There would be a smooth transition of community decisions
and recommendations and parks delivery of the recommendations
if they meet the appropriate standards.
Community participation could have been better defined. This
was the government's political decision, and we were disappointed
that it did not materialize.
Perhaps the most important point about the bill that Canadians
would like to know is, where do we fit in now? Will access be
closed to humans? Will recreation be stopped? I would like to
state for the record, no. All this is about accessibility. Our
population and international visitors will continue to enjoy our
parks, perhaps in different ways, at different times and in
different locations as parks grow in the country to offset
seasonal peaks and breeding times.
Mr. Gérin, the panel chairperson, said that stopping visitor
use was not the point at all. Better visitor use is needed. More
education and interpretation is needed. A better respect for our
natural treasures and the fragile nature of our parks must be taught
and distributed.
The increase in aboriginal participation is welcome across the
country and throughout the parks system. It is a welcome
initiative for aboriginal communities to see parks take an open
stance in delivering and preserving the natural heritage.
Although the government defeated our reference to traditional
aboriginal ecological knowledge, the reference is found in other
pieces of legislation in Canada. It could be brought in later.
This is an important contribution that the original peoples and
elders make to understanding our nature and national parks and is
a key component for the future of our national parks.
1530
I thank the heritage minister for the foresight and vision
demonstrated by her support for the aboriginal secretariat for
Parks Canada. Speaking of vision, I recognize that one reason
for the new and improved parks act was to expedite the completion
of Canada's national park system based on an eco-region approach.
Of 39 eco-regions 14 remain unprotected. This is a repeated red
book promise. The improved legislative capacity of Bill C-27
will help this process.
I thank the governor general for her specific mention of
completing Canada's parks system in the throne speech. I know
she shares the concern of the heritage minister and the Prime
Minister that this legacy for our children and future generations
be completed as soon as possible in this new century.
The NDP shared its surprise when the finance minister neglected
to provide any money to fulfil this promise. It was an awakening
when in the budget speech Parks Canada was totally missed. With
the passing of this act perhaps the finance minister can provide
a Christmas present for all Canadians this year by putting the
100 million dollars plus identified as necessary for this noble
goal that the NGOs, parks communities and Canadians have called
on, especially Parks Canada personnel who need these resources.
At the same time as there is sufficient funding to maintain let
alone restore our national parks, our national wilderness
treasures deserve respect, not neglect. That is another debate
for another day, a day when there are the values Canadians can
hold true.
We value our national parks. The national parks are hereby
dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education
and enjoyment, subject to the act and regulations. The parks
shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them
unimpaired for the future enjoyment of generations to come.
With those noble words that are a part of Bill C-27, we lend our
support to the bill. We hope that Canadians will enjoy the
national parks this summer and for future generations.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
1996, the Minister of Canadian Heritage did me the honour of
asking me to act as liaison with the working group that was
appointed to study ecological issues relating to Bow Valley,
mainly around Banff National Park.
The working group, on completing its work, stated for the first
time that the principle of ecological integrity needed to be
applied in our national parks, especially those located in the
Rockies, which were its main concern. Based on this principle,
the working group called upon the minister to stop all
commercial development, particularly in the city of Banff, which
was continuing to expand commercially.
I must congratulate the minister for the courage it took and for
the integrity she showed. All her actions since then, first of
all in implementing the recommendations of the working group,
have required a lot of abnegation and courage. It was a
controversial decision to implement the recommendations of the
Bow Valley working group, but it was an even more controversial
decision to establish, two years later, in 1998, a national
panel to look into the future of our parks, namely the panel on
the ecological integrity of Canada's national parks.
That panel, which sat all through last year, was made up of 11
distinguished Canadians. I want to say a special thanks to the
chairman, Jacques Gérin, and to other distinguished Canadians
such as Stephanie Cairns, Louis Bélanger and Henry Lickers, who
represented various segments of society, particularly in
relation to their convictions with regard to the future of our
parks.
They came to some really striking conclusions. I want to quote
here what their report said on the loss of habitats inside our
parks.
1535
[English]
In Canada over 90% of Carolinian forests have been converted to
farmland or towns. On the prairies 99% of the native tall grass
communities and 75% of mixed grass communities have disappeared.
In Atlantic Canada 65% of the coastal marshes have been drained
or filled. Across northern Canada only 35% of the boreal forest
remains undisturbed. Largely as a result of this habitat loss
many Canadian species are currently threatened.
[Translation]
As we know, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife
in Canada detected 339 endangered species.
[English]
The amazing part of this report was that it developed a huge
consensus in Canada. After broad consultations involving all
sectors the report received great support from Canadians who
value our parks beyond every other value in Canada, except
perhaps certain things like the flag, the CBC and national
identity. The parks represent all that is valuable to us in the
sense of our well-being and our sense of values in Canada.
It included a panel on ecological integrity supported by
industry, which again is a breakthrough. I will quote from an
industry association submission to the panel which indicates that
parks must become centres of learning and study of ecological
processes to provide answers for those who wish to manage in the
best ecological way possible. Parks must create research groups
in partnership with universities and industry to build the body
of knowledge necessary.
In 1997 the state of parks report of Canada indicated that out
of 38 national parks then in existence only one showed no
ecological impact or stress. Therefore 37 of the 38 parks showed
some degree, mild to serious, of ecological impact or stress.
[Translation]
The ultimate recommendation of the panel on the ecological
integrity of Canada's national parks to the Canadian government
was that ecological integrity should become the management
priority of our national parks. This led to Bill C-27, which we
are debating today at third reading.
The legislation integrated the very principle of the ecological
integrity for all aspects of the management of our national
parks.
As my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party and the
New Democratic Party said earlier, the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage came to a true consensus on Bill C-27.
I take this opportunity to particularly thank the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the member for
Ottawa—Vanier, who does a beautiful job listening to people and
who has made himself available to all committee members in order
to improve the act.
I would also like to particularly thank my colleagues in the
opposition, the member for Dauphin—Swan River, as well as those
for Portneuf, West Nova and Churchill River. All have shown a
positive, constructive attitude. All the members of the committee
have worked together, in a non partisan spirit, to improve this
act.
As my colleague for Churchill River said so eloquently, we
believe that parks are above petty politics or partisan politics.
1540
I think that we have demonstrated, in Committee as in the course
of this debate, that this intrinsic value, for us Canadians, goes
well beyond mere political boundaries.
Bill C-27 has established some marker points. From now on, it
will be much easier to create new parks. Seven new parks will be
created and the process will be much more open. There will be a
much closer interaction with aboriginal peoples, with the first
nations. There will also be—and this is very necessary—more
fines for poaching and the trafficking of animals and wildlife
species.
I would be remiss if I did not end by quoting the conclusion of
the panel.
[English]
The commission used words of thanksgiving from the Haudenosaunee
Nation which say so much that I would like to leave them with the
House:
Today we have gathered and we see that the cycles of life
continue. We have been given the duty to live in balance and
harmony with each other and all living things. So now, we bring
our minds together as one as we give greetings and thanks to each
other as People.
We are all thankful to our Mother, the Earth, for she gives us
all that we need for life. She supports our feet as we walk upon
her. It gives us joy that she continues to care for us as she
has from the beginnings of time. To our Mother, we send
greetings and thanks.
[Translation]
I think that this is the spirit of the act.
[English]
We thank our mother, the earth, for all that is good,
represented so beautifully by our national parks. I forgot to
mention that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from
Oak Ridges.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-27 proposes a number of important measures related to seven
communities located within national parks. In order to
understand these provisions we should examine the history of the
communities and the prospects for their future.
All seven communities have their origins in the last part of the
19th century and the early part of the 20th century. In the
Rocky Mountain parks of Banff, Jasper and Yoho, the development
of communities is tightly linked to the development of our
national railway and road transportation corridors. The town of
Banff was a railway construction and service centre some years
before the national park was established.
Both the towns of Banff and Jasper even today continue to serve
railway needs along with the national park needs. A small
community which is an operational centre for the Canadian Pacific
Railway as well as the administrative centre for the park, Field
is essentially a residential community for railway and park
employees. Lake Louise and Banff National Park were developed as
a tourist centre by the CPR prior to being incorporated into the
park.
Further south, the community of Waterton Park in Waterton Lakes
National Park was developed with the primary purpose of serving
park visitors. It operates seasonally and has a year round
population of fewer than 100 residents. The same is true of
Waskesiu in Prince Albert National Park, Saskatchewan, and
Wasagaming in Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba.
I note these facts to underscore the context within which the
communities were established. It was at a time in Canada's
history when we looked upon our nation as having unlimited
wilderness. Extraction of natural resources was not perceived as
being in conflict with that belief. Consequently forestry and
mining were allowed within some national parks and communities
which were established to serve those interests.
For example, Anthracite and Bankhead were coal mining towns
established in Banff National Park. Oil City, in Waterton Lakes
National Park, served the first of our oil drilling operations.
Although these extracting activities in the communities of
Anthracite, Bankhead and Oil City have long vanished, they remind
us of an era when such activities were deemed appropriate within
national parks.
1545
Today, however, we know that our wilderness is limited and we
understand the need to preserve representative areas within our
national park system. We no longer allow the commercial
exploitation of natural resources within national parks.
Moreover, we understand that any development within a national
park should be carefully limited so as to avoid impairment to its
ecological integrity. We understand, too, that high quality
environmental conditions are the foundations for the tourist
industry and the very reason millions of people visit our parks
annually. Therefore, no new communities will be located within
national park boundaries. The existing communities will be
managed in ways that support park values.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage has put great effort and
thought into the drafting the community provisions in the bill
before. She has been diligent in analyzing the key studies which
identified problems and solutions within the national park
system, which we discussed at committee.
The Banff-Bow Valley study of 1996, and the work of the ecological
integrity panel, which reported to her this March, contained wide
ranging recommendations which served as the basis for her
ecological integrity action plan.
The previous version of this bill, Bill C-70, died on the order
paper last year. One of its provisions related to the
introduction of municipal taxation within park communities. These
provisions would not have applied to Banff since it already has a
municipal taxation regime as a municipality incorporated under
Alberta legislation.
The proposal to introduce municipal taxation in the other
communities led to concerns which could best be summarized in the
phrase “taxation without representation”. The taxation
provisions have been removed and Parks Canada will continue to
subsidize the administration of these communities.
At the same time, I want to reassure members of the House that
the park community residents will be actively involved in the
management of their communities. Each community is unique and
the management model that evolves in a particular community will
be tailored to that community.
Given that the communities are special, federal responsibilities
situated on federal crown lands within a national park, it is
important that parliament retain an overview of their role and
development. To that effect, Bill C-27 proposes that community
plans be tabled in each House as soon as possible after
proclamation of the new Canada National Parks Act. The plans
with respect to the provisions in this act will be consistent
with the park management plan; an accord with guidelines for
appropriate activities; and, provide a strategy for growth
management.
Growth management will be achieved by describing the boundaries
of the community and its commercial zones, along with a measure
of maximum floor area permitted within the zones. The shaping of
these plans will also be guided by principles stated in the bill,
namely, no net environmental impact, responsible environmental
stewardship and heritage conservation.
Concerns were raised by the park community representatives
during the hearings on Bill C-27 and the standing committee
responded. Regarding concerns with respect to the termination of
the leases, the bill has been amended to state that the
Expropriation Act applies. Community plan has been identified to
mean a land use plan for the park community. This new definition
serves two purposes. First, it ensures that there will be no
confusion between the use of the term “community plan” and this
legislation and how the term is used in the Alberta legislation.
Second, it signals to park community residents that there is no
impediment to them undertaking their own planning for social,
educational, health and related needs of their community.
1550
The section on public consultation now makes explicit reference
to the representatives of park communities and requires that the
minister consult with them on land use planning and development
in park communities.
Implementing the provisions of Bill C-27 will ensure a proper
evolution of the communities from the past century into the new
millennium. They have gone from logging and mining to the prime
purpose of maintaining the ecological integrity of national parks
for the benefit, education and enjoyment of present and future
generations.
The communities have an important role in this and in serving
visitors. They will remain. They will be supported. We look
forward to them becoming models for environmental stewardship.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me pleasure to have a short opportunity to
speak to this bill, particularly with Banff National Park being
in my riding, an area which I have enjoyed for many years because
of its beauty, expanse, the people who reside there and who have
pioneered that whole area and the number of individuals with whom
I have met and talked with regard to what takes place there.
I have had the pleasure of living in that mountain range for
over 60 years. I know quite a bit about mountains and wildlife.
I certainly can appreciate any effort to try to maintain the
natural beauty and the natural state of any area that is so
appealing to the people of this great land. We must really
continue to stress the fact that this land does belong to the
people of Canada.
When I looked at the original bill, and then found out about
Bill C-27, I have to admit that I was in total shock. I never
believed for a moment that the Liberal Party would back down from
a tax grab, but it did. That shock was a little too stressful.
However, I certainly am glad to see that someone rattled the
party's chain and brought it to its senses at least once in the
time I have been here. It will no longer be required to take
extra money from residents when it has no business doing that,
because it is taxation without representation. I applaud them
for that.
The thing that always bothers me about decision making in a park
is the consultation factor. Consultation, to the Liberal
government, has bothered me for a number of years. I have seen
consultation on agriculture in my riding. The Liberals come in
droves to get consultation but they do not seem to understand
what the people are saying in my riding when it comes to
agricultural issues, for example, their beliefs on how marketing
of their product should take place. So much for consultation.
They hear it but they do not do anything.
I sat in on the consultations that were supposed to take place
throughout Banff National Park regarding a number of issues. The
strange thing about it was that some people did not even know
about the consultations. They did not even know they were going
to have an opportunity to speak, because in a lot of instances it
is only a select few who get invited to the table when we have a
consultation period.
If I am fortunate enough to get wind of it, I like to crash in
on these consultation parties and listen to what is being said.
It is not an open consultation process and it never has been. I
do not know why they continue to say things like “What a broad
consultation we have had. What a wonderful thing we are doing”.
I can name dozens and dozens of people who have lived in Banff
National Park all their lives and who may have worked for the
railroads or in the original mines. Believe me, these people
have some knowledge about what should happen and what should not
happen. Their consultation process just does not seem to occur.
1555
I have good one-on-one visits. I try to hold meetings and get
input. I had our critic out in Banff one night and we had a fair
turnout. We wanted some input from people so we could bring
their message to this Liberal government and to the heritage
minister. I understand we have a heritage minister who was
absolutely shocked that we had mountains in Banff, for goodness
sakes. It is really strange to hear these things but that is
what I hear. “Oh my, look at all the big mountains”. She did
not know we had those.
There is no way I can be convinced that public consultations
will be held when it is not clear who will call for these things.
The section states “The minister will have these discussions as
appropriate”. It will be the minister deciding if it is
appropriate to have consultations, a minister who lives in the
industrial area of Hamilton.
Perhaps some people in Banff might need to have consultations.
Maybe they should make the decisions. Or, as Ralph Klein stated,
“the lack of consultation that takes place with regard to
stakeholders and park users indicates that Ottawa is dictating
changes to park policy without input from even the provinces”.
Like it or not, that is the feeling out there. It does not
matter whether the members jeer what I say or that they want to
make a big noise about it.
I spend a lot of time in that park because it is in my riding. I
talk to individuals. I know decisions are made carte blanche
without any input whatsoever from them. They are getting a
little tired of that kind of activity. There is also no
consultation with anybody who is affiliated with the province.
Lake Louise is another beautiful little community in Banff
National Park. I will tell a story to the House of what happened
there, just to show the disgraceful way this government operates.
When I was in the Samson Mall, a great stopping off place for
people who pass through the park, a fellow told me he was glad to
see me at Lake Louise and indicated that he would like to meet
with me.
Three people wanted to meet with me behind a building and all
three of them were park wardens. Why did they want to go behind
the building to meet with me? As employees of Parks Canada,
answerable to the Liberal government, they did not want to be
seen talking to an official opposition member because it could
mean they would be ostracised or punished for having done so
without permission from park officials. We had to have a secret
meeting.
The meeting lasted about 30 minutes and these individuals
described to me the various reasons why they felt they needed to
have sidearms. However, the experts on that side of the House do
not think they need them. Have they ever consulted with park
wardens who have lived there all their lives, who have confronted
poachers and situations that are a little dangerous regarding
wild animals, which those members also know nothing about?
Do not give me this crap about consultations. I had more
consultation in 30 minutes out of sight because these guys, who
are employees of this Liberal government, did not want to be seen
talking about it. After all, it could mean their jobs. What a
pathetic situation.
However, that is not surprising. When we go into communities
and do our work as critics for prisons, guess who does not want
their names being used if they talk to us? They are called
prison guards and prison correctional officers. Why do they not
want their names used? It is because they are considered to be
employees of this government.
Consultation? No, I am afraid not. The government does not
really know the meaning of the term.
Consultation to them is to go out and put on a show. They put on
a good front, pretend to know what they are talking about, come
back to Ottawa, make all the decisions, and then do whatever they
like.
1600
When good amendments that make sense are presented by various
members of different parties the government will not consider
them. After all, they were put forward by members of the
opposition who want to make it all political.
The preservation and the future of parks should never be a
political issue. The value of the land of this great country is
far more than economics. There is nothing more valuable than the
natural beauty of the greatest country in the world.
This group of people does not want to shove politics aside and
deal with the issues in a truly open and consultative way, with
true willingness to accept good, solid ideas to make a bill
better. When they take that approach then Ralph Klein is right.
It is the dictatorial attitude of government members, ignoring
input from people, not allowing input from the provinces or
anyone else that causes the real grief in our parks. The sooner
we get rid of that attitude the better will be the chance for the
future of our parks.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we go to
questions and comments, in the flight of passionate debate the
hon. member for Wild Rose used a word which has been deemed
unparliamentary. I am sure that it was used in error, in the
flight of debate. It was the term “crap”. I wonder if the
member for Wild Rose would retract that word. I know that it was
not meant in any disrespectful way, but let us not leave it on
the record.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will replace that
word with fertilizer.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I was not exactly
sure if he was referring to a political party's name that never
made it or just where we were. Anyway, we are over it.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, maybe the word the member misused and then withdrew was
typical of his oratory. His speech was full of exaggeration and
venom. He talked about the minister not even knowing there was a
mountain in Banff or that the Rockies existed.
I thought it was a pathetic display, considering that members in
the opposition had just finished saying how much consensus and
openness there was in the committee for reviewing amendments.
Each one of them praised the spirit of co-operation that went
beyond partisan politics, which he reintroduced. It is almost a
slap in the face to his own colleague who leads the party in the
committee, who was far more co-operative and viewed the whole
exercise very differently.
The panel on ecological integrity sat after the Bow Valley
study. I was involved in the Bow Valley study so I know how many
people and groups were consulted. The panel sat for one year and
listened to I do not know how many groups from all sectors. I
quoted an industry association, but I could have quote many
others that took part in the process.
The mayor of Banff himself came to our committee. He certainly
did not speak like the member. I suppose he must know something
about his town and his park. He spoke in very constructive terms
about the legislation.
If the member felt so strongly about it to scream and shout and
accuse everybody of wrongdoing, why he did not bother even once
to turn up at our committee to propose amendments, to fight for
his position and to tell us all he told us here? We never saw
him. The committee sat and heard a lot of people. He could have
taken the place of the member for Dauphin—Swan River, but he did
not.
The word he misused was probably very typical of what he said.
1605
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there
was a question, so I guess there is no answer to that kind of
rhetoric either.
I would have loved to have gone to committee. However, I would
never want to replace my critic in that role because he is doing
an outstanding job. I would have loved to have had the
opportunity to have been there, but we get these silly little
heart attacks once in a while which do not give us the chance to
be here when we would like to be.
We talk to a lot of people in our ridings who live in these
areas. We do not wait for those people to come here to the
mountain. We find that there are a lot more areas of
consultation that could been dealt with. It is just not their
way. That is my point. It is not their way. That is what Ralph
Klein said. It is not their way when they do not even bother to
consult with the provinces. It is a dictatorial method by which
they operate in Ottawa which is unacceptable. Even Ralph Klein
said it.
I do not care what kind of screaming the hon. member thinks I
do, but I know one thing: we want consultation with the people
of Banff and the people in communities like Lake Louise and
others who are not represented by a government body. The Banff
town council and the Banff mayor do an excellent job of looking
after the town of Banff.
It is too bad there are not other government bodies in some of
the communities within these parks where people are able to
address their concerns. This government will not allow even a
definition of a government body of any sort. I would be more
than pleased to hear what the definition of a government body
would be for Lake Louise. Is it the voluntary advisory
committee, the voluntary housing committee, or the staffers
committee? Who speaks on behalf of the people who have resided
there forever?
The Liberals will not give us a definition of the government
body for these towns. The town of Banff is the only exception,
and I applaud the people of that town for their efforts. They do
their best to make sure they do what needs to be done, in spite
of the government. They can do a better job themselves without
any help from the government.
It is too bad the government does not listen a little more to
some of the good advice that comes from those areas. It is too
bad it does not make it more available to the people who have
lived there for years and years.
We would think that people as old and wise as the gentleman who
asked the question would know how important it is to go to the
elderly people who have lived in these communities for years.
They have a lot more wisdom than we give them credit for.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the
record.
In one of the comments the member for Wild Rose made he said
that there were no amendments accepted to the bill from any of
the opposition parties. The exact opposite is true. There were
amendments made to the bill by every single opposition party.
Those amendments were made as a result of listening to all who
wished to be heard at the committee, including rank and file
employees of the parks agency and everyone else who wanted to be
heard, from Banff and Jasper, from the aboriginal communities,
from Mingan and from all the environmental groups.
Every single opposition party in the House put amendments
forward and every single party had some of its amendments
accepted by the committee, including the Canadian Alliance
members at report stage, because they would not put them forward
at the committee stage, with all due respect to my colleague from
Dauphin—Swan River.
I want to correct the record on what the member for Wild Rose
said. It is the opposite which is true.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the
amendment that was approved which the member for Dauphin—Swan
River put forward.
What I am saying, and what I have said from the start when
questioned about why I was not at committee, is that it has been
my experience in the seven years I have been here that usually
that is the case. This might have been the one time when it was
not quite that usual. They may have put forward amendments and
had one or two accepted. But most of them come in the front door
and, because of the dictatorial attitude that exists on that side
of the House, they usually go out the back door. That is the
truth.
1610
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I agree to some extent with my hon. colleague. I do not
have a park in my riding, but Prince Albert National Park, the
home of Grey Owl, is located north of my riding. I think it is
subject to creeping bureaucratization. It needs to be cut back
and spending priorities need to be looked at again.
Last summer I probably had more phone calls, more petitions,
more letters and more newspaper articles written on the lake that
Grey Owl's cabin is on than on any other issue in my riding.
Groups of people came to see me. I had to tour the park. They
have finally managed to wrestle it to the ground, but it has been
quite a task. The local people have to have their eyes open all
the time. They have to be aware of what is going on.
Vigilance is always very important when dealing with
bureaucracies. Legislation is important, but it is how people
use legislation to accomplish their ends. Parks are not an end
in themselves and people are not an unnecessary and unwelcome
intrusion on the national parks, and I think that is important to
say.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point
out another thing that occurs in my riding. Banff is close to
the major city of Calgary and a lot of visitors go there. A
number of seniors have shown up on my doorstep or at my office in
Airdrie, just outside Calgary, who have reached the gates of
Banff and have turned back because suddenly there was a fee
increase that was totally unaffordable. All this was done
without consultation or news to anybody. People said that they
had gone to the gate and suddenly the rules had changed.
We have talked to the park superintendents and other people who
work in the bureaucracy. They understand that they should
correct it, and they do. I applaud most of the people who work
there. They try to be very accommodating to me as the member of
parliament and to the people who use the park. However, most of
the time they are directed. From where do they get these
directions to suddenly raise the fees? I am the member of
parliament. People would think that I might be one of the first
to know they were going to do this. Then maybe I would be able
to defend their actions.
All of a sudden a trail will be closed in Banff. Nobody knows
why, what is going on or what needs to be corrected to make it
better. There are many things that happen out of the blue. The
people who suffer the most are the ones who pioneered those
parks, the seniors and other people in the territory who love to
go for a weekend, have dinner and enjoy. Now they cannot afford
it because the fees are too high. None of that is ever
considered by the government. It just reacts. It does not seem
to care whether it has a good reason or not.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the motion for third reading of Bill C-27. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The vote stands
deferred until 5.30 p.m. today.
* * *
[Translation]
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species
at risk in Canada, be now read a second time and referred to a
committee; and of the amendment.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part today to the debate on Bill C-33, an act
respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.
1615
A motion was introduced by the Progressive Conservative member
for Fundy—Royal, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford,
asking that the second reading of this bill now before the House
be hoisted for six month, which would be an excellent idea.
On the eve of a possible general election in Canada, I did not
have a speech on species at risk on my agenda. I believe that
this government is going too far. I cannot but denounce this bill
and, at the same time, the government that introduced it.
It is amazing to see that the Liberal government which, I must
point out, obtained the support of only 38% of the population of
Quebec and Canada in the 1997 general election, is behaving as if
political thinking were the same in Quebec and in Canada. Yet, in
the House, for the first time in the history of parliament, we
find ourselves with four opposition parties. There is in the
democratic choices made by the people of Quebec and of Canada a
message that the Liberal government does not want to understand.
What is more, this government's arrogance is leading it to hide
things and act as if everything were fine. It keeps on
introducing bills that do not reflect in the least the political
realities in Quebec and Canada, which we represent collectively
in the House, with five parties and not one only.
What has this government, which is on the verge of going to the
voters for a third mandate, done since 1993? In spite of what it
keeps repeating, it has kept none of its basic commitments from
the 1993 and 1997 campaigns. The GST is still with us. We are
turning increasingly to free trade. The employment insurance
reform has been worse than the one announced by the Tories. Every
social program has felt the impact of this government's budget
cuts, health programs in particular, and this is jeopardizing the
universality of these programs.
With the surplus derived from funds diverted to other purposes
than those for which they were intended, the government now wants
to hire spies who will go and lay down the law in the provinces
on health.
Cultural budgets have also been reduced and the new president of
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CBC, is almost at the
point of becoming the first CEO of a public federal organization
to be out on the street if he continues to cut like he has.
I could go on with the list of promises that were not kept but
I would not want to immediately start an election campaign and
put the Liberal government on trial. The government will not get
off lightly because the moment of truth will come and will have
major consequences for those who are showing arrogance today.
In politics, promises must be kept. In politics, the affairs of
the state must also be administered as though they were our own
affairs and public funds must not be squandered. In politics, the
affairs of the state must be administered with great attempts to
reach consensus, and not with a confrontational approach, with
quarrels and squabbles, as the federal Liberal Party has
constantly done since taking office, particularly its leader,
who is the specialist of the no, as though he did not have the
chance to come out of his first identity crisis, which, in the
normal development of a human being, happens traditionally around
the age of two.
People are not fooled. They have had enough of this politicking
that has been enriching the same people since Confederation.
Whether they are liberal or conservative, this does not change
anything in the scandals that have marked Canadian politics for
so many years, at the expense of the little people who must be
content with continuing to pay taxes.
People are starting to get the message.
The government does as it pleases, grabs employment insurance
funds, gets in bed with the oil companies, enriches the wealthy
minority and distributes poverty to most of the people of
Quebec and Canada.
That said, let us move on to the debate on the order paper for
today, Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife
species at risk in Canada.
Biodiversity, about which we are hearing more and more,
represents the result of the evolution which the earth has
undergone over billions of years.
1620
That evolutionary process has provided the planet with a broad
selection of living organisms and natural environments. These
make up the ecosystems we know today, and all of them have a
role to play within the food chain, as well as playing a part in
the biological equilibrium of this planet.
In recent years, however, the scientists have been reminding us
that we are seeing more and more species become extinct, as well
as increasing numbers of others being threatened with extinction
or becoming highly vulnerable.
The decrease or degradation of
this biological diversity affects us all and can eventually have
unexpected consequences on the environment in which we live. In
Canada, as in a number of other countries in the world, attempts
have been made in recent years to slow down this phenomenon.
To that end, ever since the 1970s, we have seen some
international conventions being signed for the specific purpose
of limiting trading in certain plant and animal species in order
to keep them from extinction.
In 1992, there was the Rio Earth Summit and an important part of
the international community, including Canada, signed the
Convention on Biodiversity. Signatory countries pledged to
develop and implement the legislation and regulations needed to
protect endangered species and populations.
When Canada made that commitment, the government was lead by
Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative Party. That was enough
for the Liberals to promise, in their red book, a long term
protection for the species of our planet.
Following that commitment, in 1995, the then environment
minister, the member for Hamilton, tabled a first bill which gave
rise to an incredible number of protestations and critics,
especially on the part of environmental groups.
In 1996, the federal government proposed to provincial and
territorial environment ministers a Canada-wide agreement
entitled, “Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk”. In
October of the same year, the ministers responsible for wildlife
approved the principle of that accord.
At that time, the Quebec government was represented at the table
by David Cliche, the environment minister. He signed the accord
in good faith. However, he immediately issued an independent
press release where he stated very clearly that he could not
remain indifferent to the fact that this accord was probably
opening the door to overlapping and that it would be necessary to
observe closely what ensued.
Just a few weeks later the federal government, through its
environment minister, Sergio Marchi, introduced Bill C-65, an act
respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from
extirpation or extinction, a bill which too was harshly
criticized by the provinces mainly because of the broad powers it
gave the federal government with respect to the protection of
endangered species.
Many denounced the minister for his about face as his
legislation was flying in the face of comments he had made a few
weeks earlier saying he wanted to harmonize federal policies with
the provinces instead of imposing standards and overlapping with
provincial jurisdiction.
Early elections called by the Prime Minister and member for
Saint-Maurice caused bill C-65 to die on the order paper. Now the
government is telling us that Bill C-33 is a new improved version
of Bill C-65. If the Prime Minister keeps us here in the House
long enough and does not again call an early election, we must
send this bill back and not pass it under its present form.
We must find a way to respect each other's jurisdiction while
finding a real solution to the problem of migratory species, that
unfortunately know no border. It is obvious that if we are
serious about finding a real solution to the problem of
endangered species, a concerted effort is needed both nationally
and internationally.
Since this is an area of shared jurisdiction, greater
consultation and closer co-operation among various levels of
government are needed as it is imperative to improve the
protection of endangered species both in Canada and Quebec.
Again, this will not happen though confrontation but rather
through a consensual approach.
1625
Does Bill C-33 really provide an additional protection that
is enforceable? Will it really do something to improve the
protection of our ecosystems and of the threatened species that
are part of them? What good is it? What is in it?
There is sufficient cause for worry that the bill is suspicious.
While lines 25 to 30 of the preamble state that responsibility
for the conservation of wildlife in Canada is shared among the
various orders of government in this country and that it is
important for them to work co-operatively to pursue the
establishment of complementary legislation and programs to
protect species, the bill's wording does not reflect this. It
does not reflect reality, which is that protection of habitats is
essentially a provincial responsibility.
Everything in fact suggests that the minister holds the power to
impose his vision of protection on the provinces. In other words,
his legislation will take de facto precedence over existing
provincial legislation, even if the habitats fall solely under
provincial jurisdiction.
By doing so, the federal government is assuming the right to
impose its own way of protecting species. It is not at all clear
that force and fines would always be a province's preferred
approach.
Not only does the bill give broad discretionary powers to the
Minister of the Environment, but it does not respect the division
of powers as stated in the constitution and as interpreted over
the years. This bill truly interferes in an area under provincial
and territorial jurisdiction and excludes the provinces and the
territories from any real and direct input into the process.
Existing legislation is totally ignored.
It is true that the protection of species can only be effective
if habitats are also protected, but it is the responsibility of
the provinces and the territories to manage these issues in
co-operation with the various stakeholders.
Even though the minister supports, theoretically, the shared
responsibility between the federal government and the provinces
with regard to the protection of species, in reality, first, he
disregards the division of powers and the provinces'
responsibility with regard to the management of habitats and the
protection of species; second, he ignores existing legislation;
and, third, he assumes very broad powers with regard to the
protection of species. By acting this way, the federal government
is going against true environmental harmonization between the
various levels of government.
Now, what about the position of environmental groups? How did
they receive this government bill?
Those who should be the minister's allies in any attempt to
improve the protection of wildlife species find this bill
totally useless and even dangerous, and they oppose it. Indeed,
there has been much protest and criticism since the minister
introduced his bill.
Most stakeholders find the bill too weak. Even organizations
representing the industry feel that the bill will not provide
greater protection for species or specify the appropriate
approach to protecting species living on a site under
development.
Also, it must be noted that, in its present form, Bill C-33 is a
bit scary for the representatives of certain industries. As for
the representative of the Mining Association of Canada, he said
that the fines and legal proceedings were excessive in cases
where a species was not deliberately killed.
However, the main problem that seems to be raised by all
environmental groups is the fact that the decisions on the
designation of species will be taken by the minister and his
cabinet, and not by scientists.
This has led some activists, such as the president of the
Canadian Campaign for Endangered Species, to state that Bill
C-33 was a dismal failure and that it will not ensure the
protection of Canadian species.
Others, like one of the lawyers of the Sierra Club, made more
qualified statements, but still denounced the weakness of the
legislation and described as disgraceful the fact that such a
discretionary power with respect to the designation of species
be granted to politicians.
1630
The sponsor of the bill is being criticized for resorting to a
piecemeal approach dictated by cabinet, instead of a set of
gentle measures promoting negotiation, but supported by
compelling legal measures if an agreement cannot be reached.
For his part, Paul Bégin said that the proposed legislation was
just another example of useless duplication for Quebec. Indeed,
the Quebec minister indicated that the bill introduced by the
federal government sought not only to create a safety net for
endangered species and their habitat on federal lands, but also
on the whole Quebec territory.
While it may be appropriate for the federal government to
legislate to protect migrating species, this government has no
constitutional authority regarding the management of habitats on
provincial and territorial lands. The Quebec government cannot
accept that the federal government would infringe upon areas of
provincial jurisdiction and dictate to Quebec how to protect its
ecosystems when Quebec already has its own legislation
protecting endangered species and their habitats.
In fact, the Quebec government believes an act such as Bill C-33
would be acceptable if it excluded any species or habitat under
provincial jurisdiction and applied to a province or territory
only if this province or territory had explicitly asked that it
did.
Considering the increasing rate of species extinction, the
situation is serious and it is true that we must take effective
measures. But Bill C-33 is not the answer to the questions I
asked at the beginning of my speech.
The principle of providing greater protection to endangered
species is in itself one the Bloc Quebecois readily supports.
However, the Bloc does not believe that Bill C-33 will improve
the protection of species at risk. In fact, the Bloc opposes the
bill because it constitutes a direct intrusion into many areas of
Quebec's jurisdiction. It even overlaps the act Quebec passed in
1989, which is having good results.
The bill could very well increase the paper burden and it will
not allow for an efficient use of already scarce resources. The
Quebec government has already legislated in areas covered by Bill
C-33 and while recognizing that it is urgent to improve the
legislation, the Bloc does not believe that Bill C-33 will give
the expected results.
The Bloc also recognizes that responsibility for the environment
is shared between the federal government and the provinces. It is
becoming very clear now that the federal government is ignoring
this fact and is working against true harmonization of
environmental issues by the various levels of government. Instead
of assuming its major responsibilities in an appropriate way, the
federal government is insisting on trampling on other
governments' jurisdictions.
I said at the outset that I fully support the motion of my
colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party. Whether or
not a general election is called, I sincerely hope that this bill
will be postponed indefinitely.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for
Rimouski—Mitis, for her very relevant comments.
She has dotted the is for the government, which persists in
utterly invading areas under provincial jurisdiction. All the
negative elements that the member for Rimouski—Métis has noted
against this government suggest that this government believes it
knows everything.
I would like my colleague to give us other examples that prove,
beyond a shadow of a doubt, as she says, that this bill should be
postponed indefinitely.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleague from Jonquière. What I find striking in this
bill, is that there is overwhelming agreement against it. This is
quite something.
First, the member for Hamilton East introduced a bill that was a
complete failure. Nobody wanted anything to do with it. But they
did not learn their lesson. Her colleague, Sergio Marchi, also
introduced a bill. He had time to retire before it was passed.
1635
An elections was held and now we are presented with a third
bill, by another minister who has no more understanding than the
other two, which tends to prove beyond a doubt, that in Canada,
ministers are nothing but puppets. Those who really count are the
deputy ministers. They stay, while ministers move on.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to advise you that I will be splitting my time with the hon.
member for Louis-Hébert.
I am very pleased to take part in this debate. I would like to
congratulate my hon. colleague from Jonquière, who is the Bloc
Quebecois environment critic. She has done a lot of work and put
a lot of heart into her defence of the interests of her fellow
citizens, of everybody in Quebec, and by the same token, in
Canada.
I would also like to indicate that I support the amendment by
the Progressive Conservative Party. It is clear to us that this
bill should be reconsidered, or at least hoisted for six months.
The title of Bill C-33 is an act respecting the protection of
wildlife species at risk in Canada. Biological diversity in
itself is the result of evolution, which has been going on on our
planet for more than 4.5 billion years.
In the last few years, scientists have indicated that more and
more species are becoming extinct and that more and more of them
are becoming endangered or highly vulnerable.
In 1992, during the Rio summit, a large part of the
international community, including Canada, signed the Convention
on Biological Diversity. Canada agreed to draft or maintain the
legislative and regulatory provisions required to protect
endangered species and populations. Needless to say, on this side
of the House, we know what the current government's signature is
worth. It always claims to be acting in good faith, but in fact,
that is not always what happens once it has signed a document.
In 1995, the Liberal environment minister of the day introduced
a first bill, which was heavily criticized, especially by
environmental groups. We all know what happened to that bill.
In 1996, the federal government, through its environment
minister of the day, Sergio Marchi, who has since retired, as
mentioned by my colleague from Rimouski—Mitis, introduced Bill
C-65, which was essentially the precursor of Bill C-33. Once
again, the bill was heavily criticized. The Liberals called an
election and, fortunately for them, Bill C-65 died on the order
paper.
They still do not seem to have learned their lesson. They have
brought this issue forward again by introducing a bill, which
they say contains improvements. It is worth noting that the
federal government can play a role in protecting wildlife species
under certain statutes such as those dealing with fisheries or
with our national parks. However, no federal legislation exists
for this specific purpose.
If passed, Bill C-33 would be the first Canadian legal
instrument dealing specifically with the protection of wildlife
species at risk.
1640
Since pollution and migratory species ignore boundaries, a
concerted effort is obviously required at the international
level. Logically, the same goes on a smaller scale within Canada.
Canadian federalism calls for co-operation between the provinces
on this issue, since this is an area of shared jurisdiction in
our country.
Improved protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada is
necessary. The number of known species living in Canada is
estimated at 70,000, and apparently many of those exist only in
Canada. To date, the committee on the status of endangered
wildlife in Canada has designated 340 wildlife species as being
at risk.
Of these, 12 are now extinct, 15 are extirpated species or no
longer exist in the wild in Canada, 87 are endangered, 75 are
threatened and 151 are vulnerable, which means that there are
concerns about these species. Of the 97 species whose status was
reassessed in the last few years, 26 are now closer to becoming
extinct.
Needless to say that without proper federal or provincial
legislation, without enforcement measures and adequate
resources, the COSEWIC initiatives are insignificant, and their
impact is limited. With the increase in the number of species
facing extinction, the situation is critical. An efficient
response is therefore needed.
But does Bill C-33 really provide an additional protection that
is enforceable? Will this bill really ensure better protection
of our ecosystems and of the threatened species that are part of
them? We do not think so.
I wish to convey to the members of the House the position of
environmental groups and industry. Most environmental groups are
opposed to the bill put forward by the Minister for the
Environment. Those who should be his allies in any attempt to
improve the protection of wild species find the bill useless and
dangerous.
As a matter of fact, the minister has been facing a lot of
protest and criticism since he introduced his bill. Most
stakeholders find the bill too weak. Even organizations
representing the industry feel that the bill will not provide
greater protection for species or specify the course of action
they should adopt concerning the protection of the species
living where they run their operations.
It is not only the Bloc Quebecois and the bad separatists who
are saying this; environmental groups and industry
representatives are saying the same thing.
If anyone knows what they are doing, working year after year to
protect those species, if there are any scientists who are
experts in their field, it is the people in these
environmentalist groups. And they have voiced strong opposition
to and severe criticism of the bill.
We believe, among other things, that this bill intrudes on
provincial jurisdiction, in particular the jurisdiction of
Quebec, which already has its own legislation. Quebec is one of
the few Canadian provinces that has legislated to protect
wildlife and species at risk. Why not co-operate then?
This government is stubborn, set in its own ways, and this is
especially true of the Prime Minister, who should have a maple
leaf stuck to his forehead to satisfy his desire for visibility.
As I am running out of time, I simply wish to read a few lines
from a news release issued by the Quebec minister of environment
on April 11, 2000. It says:
Quebec has always acted in a responsible and adequate way to
protect its most fragile wild animals and plants, and it intends
to continue to exercise its jurisdiction in this area.
We will never accept an umbrella legislation for all action in
this area. It is out of the question for Quebec to accept
federal intrusion on its jurisdiction. This bill must exclude
all species, sites or habitats under Quebec's jurisdiction and
must only be implemented at the request of the provinces or
territories.
1645
Quebec has always taken good care of its species at risk and it
will not need to use this legislation.
Why does the government insist on intruding on provincial
jurisdictions? It does this in all areas, as for parental leave,
right now. Why insist on overlapping and intruding on existing
legislation that works?
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of all my colleagues, I want first to congratulate our
colleague from Drummond for her rather enlightening
presentation. I think that our colleague from Beauce also agrees
with the warning that the hon. member for Drummond gave—
Mr. Claude Drouin: Not at all.
Mr. Réal Ménard: My colleague says he does not agree.
I want not only to congratulate our colleague but also pay
tribute to our environment critic, for she has worked very
diligently and seriously in committee. She worked very hard to
defend Quebec's interests. In fact, that is the difference
between government members and Bloc members.
We can rise and on each issue and dedicate ourselves exclusively
to the interests of Quebec, because we do not have to work out
compromises for Prince Edward Island, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
I want to ask my hon. colleague, who is obviously a seasoned
parliamentarian since she has been here since 1993, like me for
that matter, if she could tell us why a bill like this one is
harmful to Quebec and give us many examples of the federal
government's absolutely despicable reflex of interfering in
areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Before yielding to my hon. colleague, I could refer to health.
In this area, the government wants visibility. It has no
principles. It has no respect for provincial prerogatives
because it wants to do what it calls nation building.
There is in this House a former minister of the environment in
the Bourassa government. Under a rather austere exterior, he is a
rather nice man. I believe he broke away from his party during
the language crisis.
I would like to make a wish before giving the floor back to my
colleague. Could we count on the support of all the Quebecers in
this House, regardless of their political convictions? It is not
a matter of nationalists versus federalists. I am convinced that
when it comes to the environment, our debate can rise above
partisanship and we can decide on general directions for the
future, which will be in the best interest of Quebec.
Therefore I am asking my colleague, based on her seven years as
a parliamentarian, if she could show how this government has
steadfastly refused to stay within its own jurisdiction and has
shamelessly infringed on Quebec's jurisdiction?
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his very relevant remarks. I also want
to congratulate him. He highlighted the good job the Bloc members
have been doing in the House since 1993. He is one of those who
has been doing an excellent job defending the interests of the
people of Quebec.
1650
My colleague asked me to give a few examples of infringement and
overlap. We have seen quite a few since 1993. This government is
always trying, with every new bill, to encroach on and stick its
foot in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It has been its
leitmotiv across Canada. This is what it was seeking with the
social union. When they signed the social union agreement, the
provinces sold out their birthright. They are now realizing it
with the health care issue.
Health care is one example. If there is an area of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction, it is health care. We can see what the
government is doing these days.
Education, with the millennium fund, is another example. We have
been a prime target in Quebec. It took a number of interventions
and a great deal of efforts on the part of the Bloc Quebecois to
denounce this state of affairs. And what about parental leave.
Now we have this environment bill on endangered species.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt,
but the hon. member's time is up.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the
House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for New Brunswick
Southwest, Health; the hon. member for Québec, Parental Leave.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is
both interesting and important for me to be able to speak this
afternoon on second reading of Bill C-33, an act respecting the
protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.
I wish to begin by saying that I oppose this bill in its present
form and that, moreover, I support the amendment by the
Conservative member for Fundy—Royal for a six month hoist, if
not a permanent one.
Obviously, this will be very repetitious because we often keep
coming back to the same points when we are addressing the same
bill. One learns early on in politics, however, that the best
way to get a point of view across properly is to say the same
thing often, even the simplest of things.
I would like to start with an overview of the situation. At the
present time, there are 70,000 known species in Canada and a good
number of them apparently are found solely in Canada. So, we
have 70,000 species and of that number 340 that are endangered.
Obviously there are degrees to this. Some are already gone, some
are vanishing, some are more endangered than others. Some can be
saved with human intervention.
I imagine that the purpose of Bill C-33 was to allow human
intervention, although this bill does not include the necessary
resources to satisfy that need.
Would there be some additional protection that might be
applicable? Is this bill really going to contribute to improving
the protection of our ecosystems and the endangered species that
constitute them? Let us have a look at the salient points of the
bill.
The preamble is interesting, because it appropriately refers to
the importance of protecting Canada's natural heritage and also
reminds us of Canada's international commitments, for instance,
under the convention on biodiversity, at the Rio summit, in
1992. The government had already examined the issue and was
prepared to take some action.
This preamble also says that responsibility for the conservation
of wildlife is shared among the various levels of government and
that co-operation between them is essential.
In clauses 1 to 6, the purposes of the bill are further
specified, as well as the definitions—definitions are always
quite important in a bill—that determine what land is involved.
The previous bill, Bill C-65, dealt only with federal land.
1655
In other words, the land was limited to what was part of the
federal land, while the present bill goes further and deals with
Canada's land in general, whether federal or provincial.
I would also like to remind the House of some other clauses in
the bill. For example, in clauses 8 to 13, it says the heritage
minister, the fisheries and oceans minister and any competent
minister must be consulted before the establishment of
committees or the signing of agreements with other levels of
government. There is already a lot of people around the table,
but the bill does affect several sectors of government
operations.
At clauses 14 to 31, the bill provides for the committee on the
status of endangered wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, which will
have an official status and, from all appearances, will operate
independently.
In other clauses, for example clauses 37 to 73, the bill talks
of action plans, of recovery of endangered and threatened
species and management plans for species of special concern.
These interventions will be carried out in co-operation with the
provinces, territories and the management boards, supervised, I
imagine by COSEWIC.
I am passing quickly over all the enforcement aspects of the
bill, over the infractions and penalties to reach clauses 126,
127 and 128, which provide that the minister will prepare a
report, which he will table in the House, on the administration
of the act over the previous year.
Every five years, an assessment will be tabled as well to enable
us to see whether the action plans formulated have had effect or
done nothing.
When we look at this, we can see that the bill provides food for
thought. Some aspects of it are interesting. Some aspects
should be examined, but some of them should go further.
However, what we find embarrassing is that this legislation will
immediately take precedence over existing provincial
legislation, even when the habitats are completely under
provincial jurisdiction.
We must remember that endangered species are found solely on
provincial territory. The government has ignored this and caps
everything off with federal legislation that will take
precedence over everything.
Other things made me smile.
Clause 2 provides that the minister “may”—not must—“enter into an
agreement”. Clause 39 provides that the competent minister must,
“to the extent possible”, develop programs. A little further, in
clauses 47 and 48, we find again the expression “to the extent
possible”.
I do not know which jurist put the words “to the extent
possible” in the bill, but that expression leads me to believe
that there will be black holes, or grey areas, in that
legislation.
The bill does not respect the division of powers, as established
under the constitution and interpreted over the years. It
squarely interferes with the jurisdictions of the provinces and
it excludes the latter from any real and direct input in the
process. Existing laws are thus ignored.
We support the protection of endangered species, of species at
risk. We support it so much that we have already done something
about it in Quebec.
What bothers us is the fact that this government is proposing a
bill that does not go as far as what we already have. To go
backwards has never done any good to anyone.
Indeed, even though the minister supports in theory the notion
of shared responsibility between the federal government and the
provinces concerning the protection of species, he ignores the
division of powers and the provinces' responsibilities regarding
habitat management and the protection of species. He ignores
existing laws and gives himself very broad powers with regard to
the protection of species.
In so doing, the federal government goes against true
environmental harmonization between the various levels of
government. This bill is too weak and it interferes with our
jurisdictions.
It must be reviewed. I do not know when, but the later the
better, because an incredible amount of work needs to be done.
1700
Many associations, such as the Canadian Pulp and Paper
Association and the mining associations, which cover large
areas, huge forests, as well as wetlands, know the pressure that
such a bill can bring if guidelines are not clearly established.
In the bill before us, they are not.
We all know that after the act come regulations, but we also
understand the concerns of these large companies, because they
occupy huge areas in all provinces of Canada, including Quebec.
I have mentioned some of the weaknesses of this bill.
I wanted to avoid mentioning all the environmentalists who have
doubts in this regard.
In Quebec, we have often acted reasonably. In the case of
migratory birds—and this is a good example, because migratory
birds come under federal jurisdiction—Quebec, in co-operation with
private organizations and the federal government has, for
decades now, done an exemplary job of managing these wetlands
and migratory birds.
We are therefore able to co-operate, but we really want to call
the shots in an area we are already handling fairly well.
Nothing is perfect, I admit, but, as I say, we are handling it
“fairly well”.
In conclusion, I wish to thank the member for Jonquière and
congratulate her on the great job she has done for the
environment.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker, I was the
Bloc Quebecois environment critic for several years in the last
parliament. My colleague has now taken over. I was among those
who fought Bill C-65 and I will briefly tell you why.
At the time, Bill C-65 was introduced with haste because the Rio
summit was to be held a few months later. Canada wanted to look
good at that summit, and the government was rushing to introduce
environmental bills so it would look good on the international
scene, which is not a bad idea as such, but which can be very
harmful to the environment.
The government cannot introduce a bill just like that. The first
thing to consider when dealing with environmental issues is that
the environment department should not be used for partisan
purposes.
The environment should be excluded from any form of
partisanship, yet partisanship could be felt at the environment
committee. This is not how it should be, however.
This issue is used for partisan purposes when it really should
not. The environment should be a matter of concern to all
parties and to all Canadians, and everybody should be willing to
do their share.
Quebec has proved it. We have legislation to protect species at
risk. We are willing to work with the federal government, but it
should not stick its nose in our business and tell us what to do
with our species at risk. We are already looking after things.
We want to do it in harmony, but that is not what we are seeing
in this bill. This is the same bill which has been brought back
one more time. The problems are the same, and this bill will
never solve the issue of species at risk.
I advise my colleagues to examine this bill very carefully. This
is just the second reading stage. Major amendments must be made
to this bill to meet the needs that exist both at the federal
and provincial levels, and even at the international level. We
cannot simply say that this kind of bill will solve the whole
problem with regard to the environment. It is not true.
1705
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Madam Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with my
colleague's comments, since she has referred to the legislation
Quebec has enacted, that is the act respecting threatened or
vulnerable species, the fisheries act and the act respecting the
conservation and development of wildlife.
I also agree with my colleague that not all environmental issues
are transborder issues. They are issues that are constrained by
the limits we impose through other laws and policies. We need a
great deal of harmonization and co-operation to get things done.
We should be wise enough to examine what is being done, and what
is being done well. Quebec is not the only place where things
are done well. Other provinces too have worked very hard to
protect wetland habitats.
What is being done right should be our starting point, and then
we should develop our bill, instead of taking the top down
approach.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to point out to my colleague from Laurentides that
the Rio summit took place in 1992 and Bill C-65 came along at
least five years later, but that is just an aside.
I agree that there must be no politics where the environment is
concerned. In fact, the hon. member for Jonquière will
acknowledge that, when the Environment Act was revised recently,
members of all parties voted together, I do not know how many
times.
What I wanted to point out was that we on this side of the House
find that in this bill the federal government is not making
use of its own jurisdiction. That is what I criticized
yesterday. In fact, quite the opposite. Instead of infringing
on provincial jurisdictions, we are not doing enough in our own
area for migratory birds, for habitats and for transborder
species.
I would also like to ask the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, for
whom I have a great deal of respect and esteem, whether she was
aware that I am the one who introduced the Quebec legislation on
endangered species, so I am very very familiar with it. Under
the Quebec legislation, when a species was listed as endangered,
the habitat was automatically protected. What was done recently
was that, at the request of Hydro-Québec, in a case on which I
can provide my hon. colleague the details later, cabinet
recently passed an order in council separating the list of
habitats, making—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am truly sorry to have to
interrupt the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, but the hon. member
for Louis-Hébert has the floor.
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
comment. We always learn something new with this hon. member.
I am grateful to him for introducing this legislation, which I
hope will be applied in the best possible way in Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the amendment to
Bill C-33. The amendment was put forth by our colleague the
member for Fundy—Royal. I want to state at the outset that I
support the member's amendment.
I previously spoke on the main bill so I do not intend to go
into the detail I did at that time. I will summarize what I had
to say a number of weeks ago about Bill C-33, an act respecting
the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.
I indicated that although the Minister of the Environment says
the bill will do the job, it is weak in the protection of species
at risk and their habitats. I may have previously mentioned that
the bill makes it discretionary to protect species at risk even
on government lands. Government lands account for a small
percentage of the total land mass in Canada. The bill is weak in
that sense. It also does not protect migratory birds and birds
do not know borders so we have to do better than that.
The bill invites political consideration and lobbying as I and
other members have said. The minister has chosen to allow a
group of scientists under COSEWIC to continue to list species at
risk, but at the end of the day, the determination of what will
be considered as species at risk will be made by the federal
cabinet.
There has been widespread criticism of that because it does
invite lobbying.
1710
A company which maybe is endangering a whale through mining or
some other activity could now go to the cabinet and try to
prevent that species from being listed. I just use that as an
example, but it is clear in that sense that the bill allows far
too much ministerial discretion.
The bill also fails to include compensation provisions for
workers and communities affected economically by action plans to
rescue species at risk. I am thinking of people working in the
forest. If it is decided that a patch of forest has to be saved,
then of course we would support a patch of forest being saved,
but what about the people who work in that patch of forest?
I want to very briefly indicate the NDP policy on this. I did
not do that the last time I spoke on the bill. Our policy is
clear on what such a law should do. This one really does not
come close.
The policy was carefully thought out and debated at our last New
Democratic Party federal convention. We passed a resolution at
our 19th biennial convention which said that the New Democratic
Party supports comprehensive federal endangered species
legislation developed in co-operation with other governments
which includes the benefits of traditional aboriginal knowledge
as well and ensures, first, identification and listing of species
at risk by an independent committee of scientists, wherein
scientific evidence is the primary consideration and not
political interpretation of this evidence. As I have said, the
bill gives the minister far too much discretion.
Second, the NDP convention called for comprehensive nationwide
natural habitat protection, including protection for species that
range or migrate over Canada's domestic and international
borders. I have already referred to that.
Third, the NDP convention called for legislation which would
include stakeholders in the development of species recovery
plans, provision of adequate support to those whose livelihood is
disrupted by a species recovery plan, and provision for just
transition to workers and communities by any recovery plan.
That is a very thorough, well thought out resolution about
species at risk legislation. I know the government does not
always come to the NDP for advice, but had it done so, we would
have a better piece of legislation before us than what we have
now.
When I first spoke to the legislation, it was very shortly after
the bill was introduced. I was going by my own party's response,
again based on our resolution in convention and the homework we
had done. It has now been some time since the legislation was
introduced and perhaps it is worthwhile to spend a minute or two
looking at what people are saying about it. Let us call this a
focus group for the minister for lack of a better term.
The Hamilton Spectator of Tuesday, May 2 stated:
In its current form, the proposed Canadian Species at Risk Act
will serve as little more than a token document, of little
benefit to those species truly at risk in our country.
On the day following the tabling of the legislation in the
House, Stewart Elgie of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund had this to
say:
We are very disappointed. This bill will do little to ensure
that endangered species and their habitat are protected—it
leaves everything up to political discretion.
Kevin Scott, director of the Vancouver based Defenders of
Wildlife, said:
The legislation, as we have reviewed it, is in my opinion an
international embarrassment.
An international embarrassment, that is how it is being
described.
Sarah Dover of the Canadian Endangered Species Campaign said:
I do not think this environment minister...has been given the
political capital in the cabinet room to affect serious change.
People are quite critical of this legislation. That includes
some former supreme court justices.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that I
have to interrupt the hon. member since it is 5.15 p.m.
* * *
[Translation]
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-37, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the
Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, be read a second
time and referred to committee of the whole.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order made on
Monday, June 12, 2000, the House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred division on the motion for second reading of Bill
C-37.
Call in the members.
1750
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
| Adams
| Alarie
| Anderson
| Assad
|
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
|
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
| Crête
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
| Harb
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvard
|
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
| Mark
|
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
|
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
|
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
| Vanclief
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Wood – 215
|
NAYS
Members
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
|
| Brison
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
| Doyle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Hearn
| Herron
|
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
| Penson
| Plamondon
| Schmidt
| St - Jacques
|
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
|
| Wayne – 41
|
PAIRED
Members
| Anderson
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
INTERNATIONAL CIRCUMPOLAR COMMUNITY
The House resumed from June 7 consideration of the motion and of
the amendment.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 237 under Private
Members' Business. The question is on the amendment.
1800
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
| Blaikie
| Brien
| Cardin
| Casson
|
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
| Duncan
| Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
| Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
| Herron
| Hoeppner
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Mancini
|
| Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
| Mercier
| Nystrom
| Penson
| Perron
|
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Reynolds
|
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
| Wasylycia - Leis – 69
|
NAYS
Members
| Ablonczy
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
| Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
|
| Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Hearn
|
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
| Mayfield
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
| Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
| Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
|
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
|