37th PARLIAMENT,
2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 048
CONTENTS
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
|
 |
The Speaker |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Lebanese New Year's Levee |
|
|
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Queen's Jubilee Medal |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
International Year of Freshwater |
|
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.) |
|
|
Peter Gzowski Internship Program |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Samuel Clark |
|
|
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.) |
|
|
Member for LaSalle—Émard |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Film Industry |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Lafarge Canada |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ) |
|
|
Order of Canada |
|
|
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.) |
|
|
Brian Baker |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Literacy |
|
|
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
St. Lawrence Pilots |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
|
Economic Development |
|
|
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.) |
|
|
National Drinking Water Standards |
|
|
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) |
|
|
Report of the Privacy Commissioner |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Post |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Gasoline Tax |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Aid |
|
|
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Susan Whelan (Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Homelessness |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Human Resources Development |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
French in International Institutions |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Denis Paradis (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa) (Francophonie), Lib.) |
|
|
Industry |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Road Infrastructure |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Species at Risk |
|
|
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Firearms Registry |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Guaranteed Income Supplement |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Elections Act |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Public Service |
|
|
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ind.) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jim Pankiw |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Elections Act |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Political Financing |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Interparliamentary Delegations |
|
|
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Safe Drinking Water Act |
|
|
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Procedure and House Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) |
|
|
Canada Post |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Stem Cell Research |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Post |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Stem Cell Research |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Motions for Papers |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
ASSISTED HUMAN REPRODUCTION ACT |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Report of the Privacy Commissioner |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Assisted Human Reproduction Act |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Louis Plamondon |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Louis Plamondon |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
(Motion No. 71 agreed to)
|
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Employment Insurance Act |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
IRAQ |
|
|
(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 13, Mr. Bélair in the chair)
|
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC) |
|
|
The Deputy Chairman |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
The Chairman |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
|
|
The Chairman |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. David Pratt |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. David Pratt |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. David Pratt |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Gar Knutson (Secretary of State (Central and Eastern Europe and Middle East), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
Hon. Gar Knutson |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Assistant Deputy Chairman |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.) |
|
|
The Assistant Deputy Chairman |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1400)
[English]
The Speaker:
As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Lebanese New Year's Levee
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate all organizers of the annual Lebanese New Year's Levee, which was organized by the Charlottetown Lebanese community and held at the Delta Prince Edward on Saturday, January 11.
The evening's festivities included Lebanese cuisine, Lebanese music, Lebanese dancing and an excellent address on Lebanese culture presented by Dr. Abdallah Obeid, the Director of Arabic Studies at the University of Ottawa.
The event was attended by approximately 500 people, including the Lieutenant Governor of Prince Edward Island, the Premier of Prince Edward Island, and the Mayor of the City of Charlottetown.
The Lebanese have had a long and rich history in the greater Charlottetown area, going back in excess of 100 years. The original immigrants from Lebanon, and their descendants, have contributed much to the culture of the community of Charlottetown and the economy of Prince Edward Island.
On behalf of the House I wish to salute this community and the organizers of this event.
* * *
Queen's Jubilee Medal
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, before the Christmas break I had the honour to present a number of deserving constituents from my riding of Dewdney—Alouette with the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal, recognizing their outstanding achievements, and contribution to our communities and to our country.
The recipients included: Dr. Jack Freeman, Wesley Johnson, Mayor Sylvia Pranger and Ella Pretty from the Agassiz and Harrison Hot Springs area; Linnea Battel, Terry Gidda, Bill Harris, Victor Hollister, Eleanor Lobb and Catherine Marcellus from the Mission area; and Lorraine Bates, Crystal Boser, Tom Cameron, Lola Chapman, Carl Durksen, Bernice Gehring, Chief Peter James, Sheila Nickols, Mike Suddaby and Bonnie Telep from the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows area.
On behalf of the people of Dewdney—Alouette, we thank each one of them for their endless hours of service that help to make our communities a better place to live.
* * *
[Translation]
International Year of Freshwater
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on December 12, 2002, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 2003 as the International Year of Freshwater.
This decision is in keeping with the commitments made by the international community, including Canada, at the 2000 Millennium Summit, and at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. Heads of state from around the world had agreed to halve by 2015 the proportion of people without access to or the means to access safe drinking water and basic sanitation.
If these goals are not reached, fatal diseases will continue to spread and cause devastation, the earth's environment will continue to decay and food security will be compromised, with the risks of instability that can result. Of course, water-related problems are more acute in the developing world, but developed countries are not safe either.
During the International Year of Freshwater, I am convinced that Canada will do its part to protect the planet's precious freshwater resources, which are essential to our survival and to sustainable development in the 21st century.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Peter Gzowski Internship Program
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that CBC Radio has honoured the memory of Peter Gzowski by establishing the Peter Gzowski internships. Peter was chancellor of Trent University.
The internships will provide training in broadcast opportunities for final year students at Trent University in Peterborough, Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Memorial University in St. John's, and McGill University in Montreal.
Peter would have greatly appreciated a memorial of this type, which will open the doors of his profession for young people. Students interested in the Peter Gzowski internship program should contact one of the universities mentioned or visit the website at www.cbc.ca/gzowskiinternships.
* * *
Samuel Clark
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, on behalf of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I had the privilege of presenting the minister's commendation to a most distinguished veteran of the second world war, Mr. Samuel Ervin Clark, a resident of Woodstock, New Brunswick.
Mr. Clark served overseas with the 1st Canadian Division. Beyond his dedicated service to his country, Mr. Clark chose to continue to contribute to the cause of veterans and to their community ever since his return from the war and throughout his golden years.
Mr. Clark is an outstanding example of someone who has devoted much of his life to the well-being of others. Though legally blind Mr. Clark has been managing the Woodstock Veterans Home for 39 years without any remuneration. His dedication to his fellow veterans and their families bears witness to a lifetime commitment to comrades in need and to his remarkable generosity of spirit.
Mr. Clark is most worthy of this honour. His continued efforts to assist veterans have set an example for all Canadians. It is my pleasure to recognize him for serving his country and his community with such devotion.
* * *
[Translation]
Member for LaSalle—Émard
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the member for LaSalle—Émard sees himself as the next Prime Minister. He wanted to participate in the debate on the bill to reform rules on financing of political parties.
However, he condemned the Bloc Quebecois in English in the National Post while supporting its political legitimacy in French on CKAC radio in Montreal. I think that, for Canadians and Quebeckers, a bilingual message is the same in French and English, and not two conflicting messages, like those we heard from the former Minister of Finance.
[English]
The member for LaSalle—Émard sees himself as our next Prime Minister so he wants to talk about the campaign finance bill. But he denounced the political legitimacy of the Bloc Québécois in English to the National Post while supporting its legitimacy on Montreal's French language CKAC radio.
For me a real bilingual message is the same in both official languages. National leadership demands consistent national messages in both official languages like this statement, and not the language games played by the former Liberal finance minister.
* * *
Film Industry
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last year the Canadian film industry accounted for over $5 billion in revenue and 134,000 jobs. In British Columbia alone this meant an economic impact of $2.8 billion and 25,000 jobs, ranking B.C. third in production after L.A. and New York.
Today, this industry faces a crisis that put 50% of film union members out of work in B.C. The cause? Primarily the loss of the foreign film investment deferral and an inadequate tax credit replacement. At the same time Australia and Ireland have created enhanced tax incentives for which even our own low Canadian dollar cannot compensate. The industry has been working on practical solutions which are before the Minister of Finance.
I urge our federal government to put in place the long term tax incentives that will improve Canada's competitiveness in this very mobile but important international industry.
* * *
[Translation]
Lafarge Canada
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the managers at Lafarge Canada in my riding on receiving, jointly with Longueuil, an innovation award at the 12th Annual Technology Awards Gala of the Association de recherche industrielle du Québec.
Lafarge Canada developed a new method involving the use of ash from incinerated wastewater sludge in an industrial cement powder production process.
Through this innovation, more than 10,000 tonnes of ash can be recycled, which will result in savings of $150,000 over this three-year project.
This innovation by Lafarge, located in Saint-Constant, provides a clean solution for the ash residue from the incineration of sludge at wastewater treatment plants.
We believe this new technology from Quebec will soon be used around the world.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Order of Canada
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the four Nunavummiut just awarded the Order of Canada.
Zacharias Kunuk of Igloolik is honoured for his outstanding work in preserving Inuit culture and tradition, and sharing it with the world. His film Atanarjuat is an international success.
Tagak Curley of Rankin Inlet, founding president of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, now known as Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and negotiator of the Nunavut land claim, is honoured for his dedication to the economic and political development of the north.
Helen Maksagak of Cambridge Bay is honoured for her community work. As Commissioner of the Northwest Territories and then of Nunavut, Helen performed her official duties with grace and dignity.
Elisapee Ootova of Pond Inlet created an Inuktitut dictionary and co-authored an encyclopedia of Inuit traditional knowledge.
All four have made the world a better place and are role models for all of us.
* * *
Brian Baker
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to start this year off by paying tribute to a real hero from my riding of Wild Rose. Brian Michael Baker received the Medal of Bravery from the Governor General on December 9, 2002, due to his efforts on November 4, 2000, when he was struck by a car while escorting a woman to her stranded vehicle during a blinding snowstorm in Crossfield, Alberta.
When the tow truck arrived to pull the woman's car away from the median, Mr. Baker volunteered to escort her from his rescue van at the side of the four lane highway back to her abandoned vehicle. With visibility hampered by the blizzard he feared for the woman's safety and instructed her to hold on to his arm.
They were halfway across the road when they found themselves directly in the path of a car travelling through the snow squall at excessive speed for the road conditions. Without hesitation and regard for his own safety, Mr. Baker pushed the woman out of harm's way. In a split second he took the full impact and was thrown several metres. As a result of his valiant efforts Mr. Baker suffered multiple serious injuries.
* * *
[Translation]
Literacy
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to highlight the participation of Human Resources Development Canada’s National Literacy Secretariat in the implementation of three projects in the very beautiful riding of Charlevoix.
In Baie-Saint-Paul, the Charlevoix literacy training service will receive $20,000 to develop an information kit on social intervention for staff who work with students who suffer from psychosocial problems.
In Forestville, Plaisir de lire will receive $18,000 to launch a literacy awareness campaign on the North Shore.
In Baie-Comeau, the Maison Alpha ABC Côte-Nord will receive $9,518 to prepare audio report cards for parents who are functionally illiterate.
These three examples demonstrate the determination of the Government of Canada to give all our fellow citizens the tools to full realize their abilities.
* * *
[English]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, last night I and many Canadians watched in horror as George Bush made clear his intention to wage war on the people of Iraq. At the same time he announced that the U.S. is pushing ahead with a dangerous new star wars missile defence system.
Today we learned that the Liberal government is sending officials to the United States this week to look at a possible role for Canada in this dangerous scheme. Will the Liberals really let George Bush put nuclear weapons on Canadian territory as part of this dangerous scheme?
It is time the Liberal government finally took a stand on these two grave threats to world peace. The Liberal foreign minister meets tomorrow with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. I urge him to give a loud and clear message from the people of Canada that Canada will not participate in a war on the people of Iraq under any circumstances, and Canada will have nothing to do with the U.S. missile defence scheme. No contracts and no missile sites.
Finally, MPs should be allowed to have a vote, not a debate but a vote, on this most fundamental of issues.
* * *
[Translation]
St. Lawrence Pilots
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to a group of real professionals, the pilots of the St. Lawrence River.
The importance of the role played by the St. Lawrence pilots is indisputable. Thanks to their mastery of the specifics of the St. Lawrence, many disasters—environmental, economic and social—have been avoided.
The forefathers of today's St. Lawrence pilots often exposed themselves to great risks in exploring its various bays. The narrow waters of our river, where ships are subjected to constantly changing constraints and natural conditions, absolutely require the presence of these navigational professionals.
They have at last been officially recognized by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, and will now be commemorated by a plaque in the Musée de la mer, at the Pointe-au-Père lighthouse, in the Lower St. Lawrence.
The Bloc Quebecois joins with me in expressing, on behalf of all Quebeckers, our most sincere gratitude for the excellent work that has been done and continues to be done by our St. Lawrence pilots. Imagine how many nautical miles have been navigated since the time of Abraham Martin, in 1634.
* * *
(1415)
Economic Development
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, more than a hundred mayors, municipal councillors and economic development officers from the Eastern Townships and the Montérégie are in Ottawa today to attend a seminar organized by my colleague, the member for Brome—Missisquoi.
They are taking part in information sessions on subjects relating to government programs. I thank them for responding to this invitation in such large numbers.
Their presence confirms their concerns and interest in developing new tools and opportunities for their cities or areas.
The information they will receive today will certainly be of use to businesses and organizations in a number of municipalities.
In closing, I extend my greetings to the mayors and councillors from the riding of Shefford, as well as those from surrounding ridings. I hope they will have a profitable day and thank them for their support and excellent cooperation.
* * *
[English]
National Drinking Water Standards
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC):
Mr. Speaker, Canada is essentially the only industrialized country without national drinking water standards. Two years have passed since the majority of members of the House supported a Progressive Conservative motion to ensure that Canada has national, enforceable drinking water standards enshrined in a safe water act.
Two years have come and gone since the Liberal government promised to act on enforcing safe drinking water standards. Today I will introduce a private member's bill that provides for the establishment of national standards for safe drinking water. In a letter received from the Minister of Health in September, she stated that the responsibility for drinking water does not rest solely in the hands of the federal government.
We agree, however the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association believes strongly, as Canadians do, that the federal government has an important and critical role in the preservation of safe drinking water across the country. Even the Minister of Health must believe this as well.
Provincial and territorial jurisdiction must be recognized and this is done in this private member's bill. We need to have standards for safe drinking water that are legislated and made legally binding. Let this bill serve as a catalyst, a reminder for us to--
* * *
Report of the Privacy Commissioner
The Speaker:
Order, please. I have the honour to lay upon the table the 2001-02 report of the privacy commissioner.
[Translation]
This report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Iraq
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in 1998 the Prime Minister said:
|
|
Make no mistake, Saddam's behaviour to date indicates that he will not honour diplomatic solutions so long as they are not accompanied by a threat of intervention. The least sign of weakness or hesitation on our part will be interpreted as incitement...We believe that Canada cannot stand on the sidelines in such a moment...Canada will be counted. |
Does the Prime Minister still hold to this opinion?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Yes, Mr. Speaker, and it is why we were asking from the beginning that there would be a very clear resolution at the Security Council. That became 1441. It is very clear that if he does not oblige and abide by the rules of the Security Council Saddam Hussein will face very severe consequences for his misjudgment.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, let me return to the Prime Minister's quote. He said:
|
|
The least sign of weakness or hesitation...will be interpreted as incitement. |
The Prime Minister himself and his government have been waffling consistently on what to do in the past few weeks. He said:
|
|
We believe that Canada cannot stand on the sidelines in such a moment...Canada will be counted. |
What precisely is the government doing and what is the Prime Minister doing to send the message that Canada is determined and will be counted and act with its allies?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have been working for a long time to make sure that the United Nations will give the message to Saddam Hussein. We have worked to have a resolution so that the people of the world will be together in telling Saddam Hussein that he has to disarm.
The goal is to disarm Saddam Hussein. We are all united in the United Nations to ask him to do that. Otherwise he will have to pay the price.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, let me go to a more precise question.
Both Australia and Great Britain have stated that Saddam Hussein is in material breach of United Nations resolution 1441. As well, evidence is mounting that Saddam is blocking the work of the UN inspectors team as required by the resolution. It states that without compliance there will be severe consequences.
Does the Prime Minister today believe that Saddam Hussein is or is not in compliance with resolution 1441?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are two elements that are very important to keep in mind. The President of the United States yesterday said that next week on the fifth, Wednesday, Mr. Powell will be in front of the Security Council and he will table evidence. We are waiting to see what is that proof, and if they have it, good. It will be good for the people to know. As well, there is Mr. Blix, who will make another report on February 14.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
That is another non-response, Mr. Speaker.
The allied forces have stated with good reason and with good evidence that they do not believe Saddam Hussein is complying with the United Nations. This multilateral coalition of nations is determined to increase the pressure on Saddam Hussein to respect the United Nations. They are deploying military forces to the region. Great Britain, Australia, the Czech Republic, the United States and others believe pre-deployment is important to ensure Saddam's compliance.
Why does the Prime Minister not agree with our allies?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Because, Mr. Speaker, we have a very clear policy. We have said that we have to follow the process of the Security Council and the United Nations. We were the first ones to start to ask about it and we are following à la lettre, as we say in French, the process. The process will be the testimony of Mr. Powell next week and the second report of Mr. Blix, and we will advise when we have these two testimonies.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, he did not answer my question. Allied forces, such as Great Britain, Australia, Czechoslovakia and others do not believe that Saddam Hussein is complying with the UN process. This multilateral coalition of countries is determined to intensify pressure on Saddam Hussein in order to force him to respect the UN and, maybe, avoid war.
Why does the Prime Minister not agree with our allies?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is because we believe that the unity of the Security Council is vital. We are seeing that the process works.
I am very happy that the President of the United States said there is tangible evidence and that he will present it to the Security Council next week. This is where the case must be proven. Then, Mr. Blix will submit his report. By February 14, we will know what we are dealing with. This is what we said last summer, and we are following it to the letter.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in his state of the union address last night, President Bush underscored that when it comes time to attack Iraq, and I quote, “the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others”.
Will the Prime Minister tell us if he, too, is ready to go to war against Iraq, regardless of what the UN Security Council decides?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have said from the outset that the process must take place in the Security Council and in compliance with the Security Council's resolution.
We are waiting to see what the Security council will say following the appearance of Mr. Powell and Mr. Blix on February 5 and 14.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is feigning ignorance of the current situation. France and Germany have both said that a second resolution is required, that they may exercise their veto power.
The Prime Minister has just told us that the unity of the Security Council is vital. If it is indeed so vital, can he tell us, if the Security Council is not unanimous, if the Security Council does not authorize military intervention in Iraq, will he stand with the United States and thumb his nose at the rest of the world? People have a right to know what Canada's position is.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our position is very clear. We are waiting for the conclusions of the Security Council. We are not coming to our own conclusions, we are not taking any hypothetical positions.
We called for a process. We want this process to be followed by everyone, and once the process is completed, we will hear what the Security Council has to say and we will act freely, as an independent country.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, clearly the U.S. President feels he has all the evidence he needs to launch an offensive against Iraq and has no intention of holding back because of the UN Security Council. This he made quite clear in his statement yesterday.
Does the Prime Minister of Canada not understand that, by his attitude, his unwillingness to be clearer on the Canadian position, he is undermining the role of the UN Security Council, perhaps our last hope to avert war in Iraq?
(1425)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, by asking everyone to follow the UN process, we are helping the UN Security Council. If everyone takes a different position, that weakens the Security Council.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, there are currently two attitudes toward the issue of Iraq: there are those who consider that the matter of war and peace is too important to be left in the hands of a single nation and that it should be put in the hands of the UN instead, and there are those who think that the U.S. can do as it pleases.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that, by not taking a clear, straightforward position in favour of a second Security Council resolution, he is siding with those who are leaving it up to the Americans, which does nothing to help the United Nations?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for the umpteenth time, I will repeat that our policy is to follow the UN process and that we are waiting for the two reports, which are scheduled to be tabled before the Security Council on February 5 and 14 respectively. After the Security Council has made a decision, we will make our own. It cannot be the other way around; we have to follow the process.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Last night the President of the United States made it very clear that America intends to proceed, with or without UN approval.
Does the Prime Minister agree with President Bush that the Americans have the right to put together this coalition of the willing, with or without United Nations approval? Would he assure us that if the Americans do act without UN approval we will not be among the willing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the NDP members should not participate very seriously in that debate because they have already said that even if the United Nations authorizes action they would not be there. So they should not participate. They are already out of the arena, but for us, we think it is a very serious problem. We want the nations to be together. We want Saddam Hussein to know that the United Nations is demanding once more for him to disarm, and of course if he refuses to disarm, he will have to face some very severe consequences.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, at least we are prepared to answer difficult questions even if the Prime Minister does not like our answers, which is more than we can say for him on the floor of the House.
I ask him again, does he agree with President Bush that he has the right to pursue war on Iraq without UN approval? Might I also ask, given his respect for process, will he say to the House once more why it is that he will not allow his own members to have a choice with respect to whether or not Canada goes to war on Iraq?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have a very clear position. We intend to respect the resolution of the Security Council. Already the NDP would not respect the decision of the United Nations if it is not the one it wants. For us, we respect this institution, the United Nations, and it is the best guardian we have against war.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Prime Minister Tony Blair heads back to Camp David to make Britain's case to President Bush on Iraq.
My question is for the Prime Minister. When is he going to Camp David?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States does not need to consult me today. He has known since the month of August what the position of Canada is. We have always been very clear.
Yes, I have talked with Mr. Blair many times. In October when I was in Africa I said to Mr. Blair that the best solution for him, as for everybody, was to have a resolution of the UN--
(1430)
The Speaker:
The right hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, when I asked yesterday about rules of engagement for Canadian Forces in Iraq, the hypothetical minister of defence said, who knows?
There are 54 members of the Canadian Forces in an exchange program with Britain, some of them playing key leadership roles in divisions ordered to the gulf. Canadian Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Scantland said those officers have been given “blanket authority” to deploy.
Is the minister saying there are no rules of engagement for these Canadian soldiers in the gulf, poised for combat, or was he misinforming the House yesterday?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I was not misinforming the House in the least. The right hon. member asked about rules of engagement for a hypothetical Canadian contribution to a hypothetical war. With those two hypotheticals, there are no rules of engagement.
Canadian troops that are currently operating in the region have very well defined, very clear rules of engagement, but it would not be in the interests of national security for me to reveal those rules of engagement to the general public.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein certainly is not hypothetical, and the trouble he has caused is not either. This Liberal government sticks its head in the sand when it should draw a line in the sand regarding Saddam Hussein. He responds only when faced with the threat of grave military consequences.
If we want a peaceful solution, Canada must be proactive and help build international pressure for Saddam to disarm. We are running out of time to take that stand.
Why is the government shirking its responsibility to help our allies prevent war?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have done nothing but push our allies in the direction of making sure that we are strengthening the single most important institution that will be the bulwark for world peace for generations to come, and that is the United Nations Security Council, which the Prime Minister has been supporting since August when he spoke to President Bush. It has been our consistent policy. There is nothing on this side of the House except that which we can take pride in, guaranteeing the preservation and in fact the strengthening of international institutions for the benefit of all the world.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, except for those who go on private visits and say how charming they are.
A coalition of nations is already sending troops to the Persian Gulf region to pressure Saddam Hussein to comply with UN resolution 1441. Canada is conspicuous by its absence. Once again the government gets on the fence when it could take concrete action to help reach a peaceful solution.
Again the question is, and we need an answer, when will the government join our allies to pre-deploy forces to prevent a war?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday when asked about the issue of military deployment in the Persian Gulf the Leader of the Opposition said “Well, you cross these bridges when you come to them”.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, when we voted on the Kyoto protocol, the Prime Minister said that it was a vote that would be binding on the government. He made a similar statement regarding his party financing legislation.
Does the Prime Minister agree that sending troops to war is an equally important issue and that, as such, it deserves to be dealt with in the same fashion as Kyoto, that is by having a vote in the House that will be binding on the government?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, that question was put yesterday by a colleague of the hon. member. Surely she must know, since she is a member of this House, what the rules are regarding such debates. These rules were established a long time ago. Incidentally, there will be such a debate this evening, and there may be more in the future, given the degree of interest generated by this issue. The way to proceed is determined by the parliamentary rules under which this House operates.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the government House leader himself must know that when he was sitting on the opposition benches, the Liberals were demanding that the sending of troops to war be approved by a vote in Parliament. However, these same Liberals changed that tradition when they took office, in 1993.
How can the Prime Minister now justify such an about-face?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no about-face. Before this government took office, there was no standard system for such debates.
We have established a rule and abided by it every time. Even during parliamentary recesses, I personally contacted the House leader of the hon. member's party to have the committees meet and thus have a forum to debate the issue of troop deployment. We did it every time. The hon. member must surely know that; if not, her House leader certainly does.
* * *
(1435)
[English]
Canada Post
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, to most Canadians, Canada Post sells stamps and delivers the mail. To courier companies in Canada, it has another role. It has become a Liberally connected monopoly using its market dominance to stamp them out of business.
The couriers charge that Canada Post's new partner, Intelcom, run by Liberal Party fundraisers, is using insider knowledge and strong arm tactics to capture business from Canada Post suppliers.
Will the minister responsible investigate these questionable tactics or does he believe that Canada Post has the mandate to bankrupt these other couriers?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am one step ahead of the hon. member. When the report was published in the newspaper around Christmas I asked my officials what the truth was of this.
The fact is this was a commercial arrangement that was sanctioned by the board of Canada Post. It will stand the light of scrutiny. There is no intention whatsoever to do anything nefarious to other companies. It is simply a matter of having a competitive process and following all the rules.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, there you have it, more Liberal bulwark.
It is no accident that Canada Post, without notice, chose to purchase that particular courier company. Intelcom was owned by Liberal Party fundraisers connected to André Ouellet, a former Liberal cabinet minister and now Canada Post president, and the present justice minister who is the political minister for Quebec.
Is Canada Post's mandate to deliver the mail or deliver these lucrative opportunities to Liberal Party hacks? Which is it?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is bordering on innuendo here in the House of Commons, slurring the reputation of an honourable person, someone who sat in the House for many years, someone who is doing an outstanding job with the post office and leading it to profitability.
We have the best post office in the world. The Hon. André Ouellet, the president, is leading us to widespread recognition around the world for his good management.
* * *
[Translation]
Gasoline Tax
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, since 1995, the federal government has collected a special tax of 1.5¢ per litre of gas, supposedly to help reduce the deficit, even if there has not been a deficit since 1998.
Given that there has not been a deficit since 1998, can the Minister of Finance tell us how the $740 million that he took from Quebec drivers was used?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, eliminating the deficit is a terrific achievement for us. We are now in a position to reduce taxes, not only for drivers, but for all Canadian taxpayers. As a result, we have cut taxes by $100 billion over five years.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing funny about taxes. The minister can try to excuse his actions, but he is not convincing.
Given that he has reached his objective and has had a zero deficit since 1998, would the Minister of Finance be willing to consider the suggestion of the Quebec minister of transportation, which is to repatriate the gasoline tax revenues to the provinces to fund public transit?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I know that the provinces really like the tax points, but sometimes, they forget about them. They really like them because they want us to impose the taxes and then let them spend the money.
As far as I am concerned, the Quebec minister of finance is capable of imposing a tax if he so wishes.
* * *
[English]
Ethics
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board about the low ethical standards for claiming business expenses when travelling.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage has claimed about $80,000, which she calls just other expenses, with no receipts attached.
The Prime Minister defended these practices by saying that they fall within Treasury Board guidelines. Which guidelines allow ministers to be paid without receipts?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the ministers of the government have been filing their expense claims the same way for more than 30 years. They have to sign an official statement in which they declare the expenses they have incurred on trips they have made, the duration of the trip, the destination and the lodging and meal expenses.
This is an official statement signed by the minister that is accessible under the Access to Information Act.
(1440)
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in an atmosphere of questionable cabinet ethics, it is incredible that under Treasury Board rules ministers do not have to submit receipts for expense claims. In fact, the Auditor General is also opposed to the practice.
What is required of average taxpayers should be required of ministers. It is very simple.
Will the President of the Treasury Board take the responsibility of this ethical lapse, this privileged status for ministers over there, and require receipts for all claimed expenses?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, each minister who has to claim expenses must make an official statement. It is their name, their word on this document, stating that they incurred expenses on trips for lodging and meals.
This official document signed by the minister is even accessible. It can be provided to anyone who asks for it under the Access to Information Act.
* * *
[English]
Foreign Aid
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Cooperation.
There are more than 11 million Ethiopians in need of humanitarian assistance today and another 3 million need to be closely monitored. No one wants a repeat of the 1984 tragedy when mass starvation caused widespread suffering and death in Ethiopia.
Could the minister inform the House how the Government of Canada through CIDA is responding to this emergency?
Hon. Susan Whelan (Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, during my recent trip to Ethiopia I witnessed the effects of drought firsthand and had a chance to speak with some of the local people who are benefiting from Canada directly.
On January 16 the Government of Canada announced an additional $40 million in emergency assistance. Assistance will be delivered in partnership with the World Food Program, the Canada Food Grains Bank and other NGOs which will bring our total contribution to $47 million since September.
Canadians are providing a leadership role in dealing with the drought and the famine in Ethiopia. We will continue to monitor the situation very closely.
* * *
The Environment
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the Minister of the Environment had a discussion with the head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency over the loosening of some EPA regulations for 18,000 coal fired power plants and said that it would not have an impact on air quality in Canada.
In the context of the fact that we have 5,000 deaths that are air pollution related and in the context that a great deal of that air pollution from the United States ends up in southern Canada, and in particular in my home city of Windsor, is the minister really serious? Does he believe that by loosening those regulations that--
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister of the Environment.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we certainly agree with the hon. member that the issue of air quality is particularly important and, of course, as he pointed out, to achieve improvements on the quality of air that comes from the United States we have to work with the United States.
As to specific concerns, I would bring to his attention, with respect to phase two of the 2018 timeframe, we are concerned about changes in particulate matter in ozone. We also are concerned about mercury levels. We will be working with the Americans to make sure these specific concerns about specific pollutants that kill--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Vancouver East.
* * *
Homelessness
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, why is that after three years and $300 million to solve homelessness we still have a national disaster and no social housing? Why is it that a baby is born on cold concrete steps in the middle of winter because there is no safe housing for women and kids? Why is it that life on minimum wage means poverty and despair?
Quality of life and human dignity used to mean something in this country. Why have the Liberals abandoned this? What does the Prime Minister say to these Canadians who are still out in the cold, still homeless and still poor?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, community organizations across the country have worked on the homelessness file. I have to say that we have gone away from shelter beds and into transitional housing.
As for housing, since we have travelled on the homelessness file, the government has put $680 million into housing. The provinces are spending that money as we speak. A lot of work still needs to be done but through our partnerships with the provincial governments, the municipalities and the communities we are making a difference in the country.
* * *
(1445)
Iraq
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC):
Mr. Speaker, following the tabling of the Blix report before the United Nations Security Council on Monday, the United States concluded that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 1441.
Then, Britain and Australia concurred. On the other hand, France and Germany argued that more time was needed. What is Canada's position?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has answered that clearly in the House three times today already.
We know that Colin Powell will be going to the Security Council on February 5. We know that Dr. Blix will be reporting back to the Security Council on February 14.
I had a long conversation with Dr. Blix yesterday. We are constantly consulting with our allies and United Nations officials to ensure that resolution 1441 and the processes laid out in that resolution are followed in a way that will ensure the disarmament of Iraq on the one hand and the peace and security of the world on the other hand.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Hansard the Minister of National Defence said that it would be very difficult to know what the rules of engagement would be.
Today he said that there are rules of engagement for the Canadians involved with the British in the gulf but that they are so secret he cannot reveal them.
Are these rules of engagement Canadian rules? Are they British rules? Are they American rules? Or, does the minister know?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the question. I thought I answered it clearly the last time.
What I said and what I will repeat is that for a hypothetical unknown case that may or may not occur in the future, obviously we do not have rules of engagement.
For the Canadians who are there today in Canadian vessels, we have rules of engagement, which I cannot reveal, but quite clearly they are Canadian rules of engagement that are used by the Canadian Forces.
* * *
Human Resources Development
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, retroactive GIS payments are supposed to be limited to an 11 month period.
In August 1999, a claimant received a cheque for over $20,000 covering a period of over five years. The minister of HRDC had previously denied the claim. The OAS review tribunal denied the appeal and ruled in favour of the minister.
What mock parliamentary authority was used to justify the cheque?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should understand that where administrative errors are made the minister has the authority to make retroactive payments. That is the case in this regard and it is an appropriate way of managing the file.
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, neither the minister nor the bureaucracy should be able to override the OAS review tribunal and cut cheques for tens of thousands of dollars on a whim.
I have written to the Auditor General today asking her to look into this matter. Will the human resources minister also investigate this issue and report back to the House with a full explanation of why her department broke the rules by arbitrarily cutting a cheque for over $20,000?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that as far as the system that is in place, there is a one year retroactivity provision for most guaranteed income supplement reviews.
I think the hon. member would accept that where there are administrative errors, we do have to respond to individual Canadians appropriately. That is part of the process and I for one believe it is the right process.
* * *
[Translation]
National Defence
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence has decided to close the dimensional metrology reference laboratory in Quebec City, thereby depriving the rarea of high calibre expertise and knowledge. DND consulted no one except the member for Louis-Hébert, who did nothing.
I am asking the Minister of National Defence why a laboratory was closed when it was working very well?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not have a detailed response for the hon. member at this time, but I will obtain one and get back to her tomorrow.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would also ask the Minister of National Defence whether he intends to treat the area properly and whether he will suspend his decision and carry out a proper consultation of the Quebec City scientific and political community, which is greatly concerned about this.
(1450)
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the importance of the matter and of the area, and will do my best to obtain an answer very promptly.
* * *
[English]
Health
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the federal government says it is only willing to consider new funding for three health priority areas. The provinces, the people who deliver health care, have identified eight priority areas, eight areas that need a total of $5.4 billion.
Why is the government only willing to consider new money for some provincial priorities?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, provincial and territorial health ministers and I met in early December and we did identify key priorities.
If the hon. member took the time to read the draft accord presented to provincial and territorial premiers by the Government of Canada, she would find that all eight of those priorities are mentioned somewhere in that accord.
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the provinces are asking for $5.4 billion of funding. The minister is ignoring priority areas identified by the provinces.
The government should negotiate agreements to ensure any new money goes to provincial priorities.
Why can the government not provide the provinces with their priority funding?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, actually I would be very interested in having the hon. member, either this afternoon or at another time, identify for me any of the provincial and territorial priority areas that are not addressed in one way or another in our proposed accord.
I reiterate, I do believe that the priorities my provincial and territorial colleagues and I discussed in early December are all in one way or another addressed in our draft accord.
* * *
[Translation]
French in International Institutions
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for the Francophonie.
It has been noted that French is being used less and less in international institutions. Could the minister tell us what he plans on doing to promote the use of French in international institutions?
Hon. Denis Paradis (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa) (Francophonie), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada actively promotes the use of French in international organizations. During the Francophone Summit in Beirut and the last ministerial conference in Lausanne, I announced that Canada would be providing $500,000 to promote the use of French in international organizations in New York and Washington, more specifically at the UN and the Organization of American States.
In the very near future, we will be asking Canadian companies if they are interested in this initiative.
* * *
[English]
Industry
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry should be aware that the marketplace, free of political control, is the best way to deliver high speed or broadband Internet access to rural communities.
Political control of the Internet has failed. Why does the minister believe that if business cannot provide a service, the taxpayers can?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, just last year we allocated $105 million to communities across the country asking them to work together and with the private sector to come forward with plans to make broadband access available in those communities.
We understand that public-private relationship is the best way of proceeding. We are taking advantage of that relationship in making this important service available to Canadians across the country.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, let us hope the minister was not using gun registry math to do his calculations.
Funding business plans that cannot be implemented is another waste of taxpayers' dollars. Many communities were missed in last Friday's announcement. His announcement had more to do with pork barrel politics than providing Internet service to Canadians.
Instead of another Liberal spending spree using taxpayers' dollars, why does the government not simply eliminate the capital tax altogether?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member just has it wrong. The rural communities, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and small cities throughout the country welcomed this opportunity to work with Internet service providers and with business interests to make these services available.
What we are doing is enabling these small communities to make proposals that will allow them access to e-health, e-commerce for their small businesses, and distance education. The member should realize this is a way of opening up opportunities to rural Canada.
* * *
(1455)
[Translation]
Road Infrastructure
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that concerns all the members from Haut-Richelieu and Brome—Missisquoi is Highway 35.
The Minister of International Trade and the former Minister of Finance, during a visit to Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, both maintained that the funds were available under the Border Infrastructure Fund. The Quebec government is willing to fund 50% of the project.
What is preventing the minister responsible for infrastructure from signing the protocol with Quebec, putting the money on the table and keeping his government's commitments?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, Quebec still has not signed the agreement on provincial bridges and roads, unlike the other provinces. We are willing to sign the agreement and to consider investing in any highway.
* * *
[English]
Species at Risk
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the species at risk act received royal assent in December.
Would the Minister of Environment please inform the chamber as to when the act will come into force and what the government is doing to support stewardship, the protection of species at risk and their critical habitat?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that we expect proclamation in June. I thank him for his support on this legislation.
In the meantime, we will be working under the stewardship programs of the act and under the money made available by the Minister of Finance in past budgets on the issue of stewardship throughout, with the provinces, territories and with landowners.
Finally, if there is need for further information sessions, we will arrange those before June.
* * *
Firearms Registry
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Parliament continues to be kept in the dark about the costs of the gun registry. Maybe the public accounts committee will shed some much needed light on the subject.
Could the chairman of the public accounts committee provide Parliament and Canadians with a status report of its upcoming review of the federal firearms fiasco?
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his excellent question.
The public accounts committee will begin hearings on February 24 into the Canadian firearms program. We will start by calling the following witnesses: the Auditor General, the Minister of Justice, the Deputy Minister of Justice, the President of the Treasury Board and the current and former CEOs of the Canada firearms program.
Let me be clear. Parliament has a responsibility to investigate this billion dollar boondoggle to the fullest on behalf of all Canadian taxpayers to find out how the program could have spiralled so far out of control.
* * *
[Translation]
Guaranteed Income Supplement
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in connection with the seniors who were deprived of the Guaranteed Income Supplement, two officials from the Department of Human Resources Development Canada told us in committee that if those seniors managed to live without the Guaranteed Income Supplement, this proves that they did not need this last resort assistance.
I would like the Minister of Human Resources Development to tell us if the statements made by these two officials reflect her department's official position?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the official position of the department and the government is that the guaranteed annual income supplement is a very important addition to the pension structure in Canada.
The guaranteed income supplement is there to help seniors with their immediate needs. We know that by providing this along with other pension programs in Canada, we have one of the best support systems for Canadian seniors in the world.
* * *
(1500)
Canada Elections Act
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, we already know from the heritage minister that Kyoto was delayed because of the influence of big money. We are now reading that Liberal MPs, including cabinet ministers, are shovelling money into secret trust accounts.
My question for the government is, what assurances are there that these political pork barrels will be dismantled and disallowed under amendments to the Canada Elections Act?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is in breach of an agreement that he made earlier today to participate in an in camera briefing on the bill and has now revealed it before the House before the bill was introduced.
Some hon. members: Shame.
The Speaker:
Order. We have moved on to the next question. The hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester has the floor.
* * *
Softwood Lumber
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC):
Mr. Speaker, on December 23 the Minister for International Trade issued a press release saying, “The government of Canada announces $15 million of support for Canadian softwood lumber associations”.
The press release implies support for associations in all regions of Canada. Are there any regions of Canada that will not receive one single cent of this support money?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear that indeed we are supporting the softwood lumber industry across the country because we are going through a very difficult time with the punitive measures that the Americans are taking.
As Atlantic Canada is not affected by the countervailing duties, the Maritime Lumber Bureau has asked not to receive that assistance from the Government of Canada, not to be rolled into the American action. It is at their request that they are not receiving any money, but we stand by the rest of Canada because softwood lumber is a top priority for the government.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker:
I draw the attention of all hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Heather Forsythe, Solicitor General for Alberta.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker:
The Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Saskatoon--Humboldt.
* * *
Privilege
Public Service
[Privilege]
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ind.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 48, and with regard to my prior notice, I rise on a question of privilege. The incident at issue, which had the effect of impeding and obstructing my duties as a parliamentarian, occurred during the parliamentary recess and resulted in a contempt of the House of Commons.
As a result of the recess, I am bringing this matter to your attention at the earliest possible opportunity, since the House only resumed this week.
In dealing with the charge of contempt I am bringing to your attention, it is essential for you, Mr. Speaker, and all members to understand that contempt as opposed to privilege cannot be enumerated or categorized.
It is on that very point that I refer to an October 29, 1980, ruling by Speaker Sauvé who stated:
|
|
--while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. |
She also said:
|
|
When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred. |
That sentiment was duly reiterated by Speakers Fraser and Parent in their rulings made respectively on October 10, 1989 and October 9, 1997. Those rulings concerned contempt of the House where no precedent existed and for proceedings that had not been envisioned.
Those rulings are significant because the contempt I am highlighting is similar in that it is somewhat unprecedented.
In Marleau and Montpetit, 2000 edition, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it states, at page 50, that:
|
|
“Parliamentary privilege” refers more appropriately to the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfil their functions. It also refers to the powers possessed by the House to protect itself, its Members, and its procedures from undue interference, so that it can effectively carry out its principal functions which are to inquire, to debate, and to legislate. |
It is in respect of exercising my rights of inquiry as a parliamentarian that I was unduly interfered with by certain individuals within various government departments.
Specifically, on December 27, 2002, and from January 2 through January 6, 2003, I made inquiries with public servants about the discriminatory effects that the government's bilingualism scheme had on anglophones seeking employment and promotion within the federal public service. In both cases my parliamentary e-mail account was used to communicate proceedings of the House with public servants.
The information provided to civil servants on December 27, 2002, was taken directly from Hansard and contains my intervention and that of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury Board Minister during the adjournment proceedings of December 4, 2002. This information was communicated as a public service, to provide information about government policy debated in Parliament.
From January 3 until January 6, 2003, and in the absence of any effort by the federal government or unions to consult public service workers, I inquired and surveyed public servants about the extent to which discriminatory bilingualism has impacted and obstructed their careers.
At this point, I would like to reiterate my reference to Marleau and Montpetit and their emphasis on what constitutes parliamentary privilege in respect of protecting members from undue interference in the course of their duties.
Further to this point, I also refer to a ruling on a question of privilege by Speaker Francis, February 20, 1984, which established that efforts by a public servant to withhold co-operation from a member constitutes a prima facie question of privilege.
In regard to the December 27, 2002 e-mail, on January 4, 2003, an employee of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Peter Paton, directed employees in the department to not reply and to delete the e-mail.
On January 16, 2003, and in respect of the survey sent out on my parliamentary account January 3 to 6, 2003, the Secretary of the Treasury Board and Comptroller of Canada, Jim Judd, sought to undermine the confidentiality of the survey and discourage public servants from responding to the survey.
On January 17, 2003, an employee with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Rob Wright, did the same when he advised employees in the department that my assurance of confidentiality could not be guaranteed, an effort to intimidate public servants from responding.
On January 14, 2003, Cathy McLaughlin, who is the Assistant Director of Diversity and Official Languages Program at Human Resources Development Canada, demanded that staff in the department not respond to the questionnaire.
(1505)
On that same day, HRDC director Shirley Kimery instructed employees in the department to not respond to the questionnaire. Each of those unwarranted interferences breached my privilege as a member of this House as they relate to free speech, inquiry and the use of e-mail as an extension of the proceedings of Parliament. More important, if you find, Mr. Speaker, that the actions of these individuals did not breach a specific privilege, they nonetheless are a contempt of Parliament.
In that regard, I refer to Marleau and Montpetit, 2000 edition, at page 52, which points out that:
|
|
Contempt may be an act or omission; it does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member, it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results. |
Over the years members have brought to the attention of the House instances in which attempts were made to impede, obstruct or interfere in members abilities to conduct their duties, but there are no hard and fast rules about the manner in which such obstruction occurs.
This is what Speaker Sauvé conveyed in her ruling of October 29, 1980, and the point Marleau and Montpetit are making on page 52. Pointedly, such instances ought not be solely viewed in the context of whether such obstruction was physical in nature, but whether the effect of the action was to impede a member's parliamentary privilege, the discharge of his or her duties or which offends the authority or dignity of the House.
In a similar vein, I refer to Erskine May's 21st edition which deals with contempt at page 115. It notes that it is not possible to list every act which might be considered to amount to contempt. Accordingly, such incidents need to be measured and weighed against the rights of members to perform their duties without undue interference.
The last point I want to make on the issue relates to the manner in which the contempt occurred. This is very significant because, as noted in Joseph Maingot's Proceedings in Parliament, at page 94:
|
|
One must not lose sight of the fact that “proceedings in Parliament” is not the only criterion or the only criterion for the House of Commons when determining whether it has jurisdiction in any matter. Contempt of Parliament rarely occurs during a “Proceeding of Parliament” but rather it emanates from outside the House... |
This very point was at the heart of the issue, which Speaker Francis ruled on and to which I previously referred. In that precedent setting ruling of February 20, 1984, Speaker Francis found that the action of public servants to withhold cooperation, “would undoubtedly hinder that member in fulfilling his duties”.
By way of summary and conclusion, I am confident that a contempt of Parliament has occurred with regard to the actions of the individuals who undermined my effort to inquire and communicate with public servants.
I believe your review, Mr. Speaker, of this matter will find that I have established that the individuals named, through their actions, produced results that had the effect of impeding me as a member of Parliament in the discharge of my duties. Again I reiterate the point made in Maingot that:
|
|
Contempt of Parliament rarely occurs during a “Proceeding of Parliament” but rather it emanates from outide the House... |
As such, Mr. Speaker, if you find that a contempt of the House has occurred, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
(1510)
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond briefly to this point of privilege. There are three or four issues and I will be very brief.
The hon. member referred to free speech. I do not believe he has made a case that someone threatened him that he could not speak in the House of Commons or one of its parliamentary committees. That perhaps would be a case to be made, but I do not think it was made. It was not even alleged.
On the matter of what the hon. member called his inquiry, that is a totally inaccurate way of portraying what this aspect of privilege is about. I believe that this has to do with the fact that a parliamentary committee summons people who are supposed to give actual facts, the truth and so on. Nothing ever has said that a member of the House had a right to disrupt some 200,000 civil servants, or whatever the number, by sending them e-mails. I do not believe that anyone could allege that in any way justifies the action taken by the hon. member.
On the issue of confidentiality, has anyone ever heard of a confidential e-mail to 200,000 people? This is what the hon. member is alleging, that his confidentiality has been broken.
Finally, if senior civil servants had directed their staff not to respond to disruptions of their work, whether by a member of this House or by anyone else in the course of their actions, by receiving this material, insulting as it was because I saw it, all the power to them as far as I am concerned.
The Speaker:
I want to thank the hon. member for Saskatoon--Humboldt for raising his question of privilege and the government House leader for his contribution. I will take the matter under advisement and return to the House in due course.
However, while I am on the subject, I would like to take this opportunity to comment briefly on the context of the issues raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon--Humboldt.
As members know, I take very seriously my responsibility as the guardian of the rights and privileges of each member of the House and of the House as an institution.
In the matter of this member's electronic communications in recent days, it has been brought to my attention that use is being made by the hon. member of the services of the House, namely the e-mail system, and this use has presented unprecedented difficulties.
Briefly put, the volume of messages and the size of each message are such as to interfere not only with the operation of the system as a whole here at the House of Commons but with the operation of systems in place in various government departments and agencies. So toxic has been the effect on various outside recipients that a government-wide alert has been issued with regard to these mailings that are viewed as dangerous and reprehensible spamming because of their negative effect on the functioning of the receiving system.
Accordingly, as your Speaker, I had to weigh the rights of the individual member against the rights of all other hon. members and I have reached the following conclusion. Until specific guidelines have been adopted to regulate mass e-mailings, just as we regulate mass mailings by regular post, I have directed officials to contact any member whose activities impede the proper functioning of the system here at the House or the functioning of systems off the Hill to inform that member to cease such destructive activity.
Alternatives will be proposed where possible and if the member does not comply, I have instructed officials to suspend the member's account. That means there will be no e-mails.
I want to stress that these measures will only be taken to deal with abuses of the services that are provided to each member, abuses which interfere with the continued, untrammelled use of these services by all hon. members.
I thank the House for its attention.
Mr. Jim Pankiw:
Mr. Speaker, on that subject, I would like to inform you that when it was brought to my attention that the government's systems, which have not be upgraded since 1984, were unable to handle this, I instructed my assistant to work with the information technology people. They have worked out a system by which these e-mails can be sent in no disruptive manner, which was never my intent.
I am more than prepared to--
(1515)
The Speaker:
I thank the hon. member and as I indicated I will continue to monitor the situation.
* * *
Points of Order
Questions on the Order Paper
[Points of Order]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on November 14, 2002, I placed a question on the Order Paper, Question No. 47, regarding “losses of public property due to an offence or other illegal act” for the Department of National Defence.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, there are new rules governing the disposition of questions on the Order Paper when the government fails to respond within the requested 45 days. Standing Order 39(5)(b) states:
|
|
If such a question remains unanswered at the expiration of the said period of forty-five days, the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond shall be deemed referred to the appropriate Standing Committee. Within five sitting days of such a referral the Chair of the committee shall convene a meeting of the committee to consider the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond. |
While I did receive a response from the Ministry of National Defence it only tabled a partial response on January 27, 2003, to the question I posed. At the conclusion of its response it stated:
|
|
However, the Department of National Defence has obtained information representing $93,000 of the $220,000 addressed in Question 47 (see attached chart) and will provide the remaining information as soon as practicable. |
Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to that last phrase, “and will provide the remaining information as soon as practicable”.
What we have is an answer, yet not the answer to the question which I posed. Technically speaking, we can say that we have received an answer from the Department of National Defence, however it openly admits that it has not answered the question and will provide the information in its words “as soon as practicable”. There is no timeframe stipulated in this answer. We are not aware if we are talking days, months or years. Therefore the department has taken the position that it can respond to Parliament on its timetable rather than on Parliament's timetable.
This is the tail wagging the dog. Serious questions posed by Parliament requesting an answer within 45 days should be tabled in this House within 45 days and not on a timetable at the discretion of the minister who has not even indicated what that timetable will be.
The information requested in Question No. 47 on November 14, 2002, used to be published as a matter of course in the Public Accounts of Canada on an individual item-by-item basis. The government has since taken it upon itself to aggregate these amounts and report them on a lump sum basis. This reduces the openness and transparency required in a democracy, and that openness and transparency would be further impaired if the department is able to provide the information as and when it sees fit.
Since Standing Order 39(5)(b) is a new procedure, I would not want us to get off on the wrong foot, and therefore I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to refer this matter either to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts or the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs on the basis that the question has not been answered.
The Speaker:
I thank the hon. member for St. Albert for his question. Of course, my heart goes out to him in not getting what he regards as a proper answer. I must tell him that it is tough for the Speaker to intervene and decide whether an answer to a question is a suitable answer. Normally Speakers tend to stay away from it. He will hear more of that later. I cannot find the quote I want to put my finger on on that point. He will hear about it in due course.
* * *
(1520)
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among all parties in the House and I believe you would find consent for the following motion regarding the debate this evening. I move:
|
|
That, for the purposes of the debate pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on this day only, the words “four hours of debate” in sub-section 3(d) of the said Standing Order shall be read as “six hours of debate”. |
In other words, after this consultation we have agreed to extend the debate by two hours this evening to allow more members to participate.
The Speaker:
Does the government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 18 petitions.
* * *
Canada Elections Act
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Political Financing
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the legislation I have just introduced forms part of the eight point action plan on ethics, announced on June 11, 2002, by the Prime Minister of Canada, to improve the fairness and transparency of Canada's electoral system. These changes also build on an overhaul of our electoral legislation, which I introduced in the last Parliament through Bill C-2, to modernize many aspects of the Canada Elections Act.
There has long been a perception, whether founded or not, that certain groups in society--corporations, unions and the wealthy--may exercise undue influence in our political system through the financial contributions they make to political parties and candidates. This legislation addresses this perception and enhances the fairness and transparency of our political system by ensuring that full disclosure of contributions and financial controls would apply to all political participants.
[Translation]
While parties and candidates are already subject to disclosure requirements, other important participants in the political process are not.
According the bill, party riding associations, leadership candidates and nomination contestants would now be required to disclose contributions received as well as expenses incurred to the Chief Electoral Officer.
Furthermore, nomination contestants would be subject to a spending limit equivalent to 50% of the candidates' spending limit in the same riding in the previous election.
[English]
A further key element to the bill is a prohibition on contributions from corporations, unions and other associations. As a minor exception to this prohibition, corporations, union and associations would be allowed to contribute a maximum of $1,000 annually to the aggregate of candidates, local associations, and nomination contestants of a registered political party.
The bill would limit the amount that individuals could contribute: the aggregate of a $10,000 annual donation to a registered party, all of its local associations, candidates and nomination contestants combined. Individuals would be allowed to contribute $10,000 to the leadership contestants in a particular leadership campaign.
Together, these reforms would increase confidence of Canadians in our electoral system.
(1525)
[Translation]
Of course, the virtual elimination of political contributions from corporations and unions, and the new limits on individual contributions, would have a significant financial impact on political parties and, to a lesser extent, on candidates.
For that reason, the bill would also increase the financial assistance already provided to political parties and candidates.
Thus, the percentage of election expenses that can be reimbursed to parties would be increased from 22.5% to 50%—as is already the case for candidates—and the definition of reimbursable election expenses would be broadened to include polling. The ceiling for expenses eligible for reimbursement would be increased correspondingly.
The qualification threshold for reimbursement of candidate expenses would be lowered from 15% to 10% of the number of valid votes cast in the riding.
This will allow more candidates—unsuccessful candidates in this case—to receive reimbursement after elections.
As is already done in three provinces, registered parties will receive an allowance. It will be paid quarterly on the basis of the percentage of votes they obtained in the previous general election.
[English]
The measures in the bill reflect consultations that I have had with a wide range of experts and stakeholders, as well as provincial authorities across the country. They also draw on political financing measures that are already in place in several Canadian provinces, and indeed other countries as well.
[Translation]
I look forward to working with all members of this House on these changes to strengthen the connection between Canadians and their political representatives, and to increase public confidence in the integrity of our electoral system, a system that is already recognized as one of the finest in the world.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important topic. I wish we were dealing with the issue of campaign finance reform and electoral legislation as part of a broader agreement between the parties and, frankly, on the basis of the issue of fairness to all players.
Unfortunately, the reality is that the government is bringing in legislation because of problems in the Liberal Party's image around corruption and scandals, and because of the struggle for power within the Liberal Party itself. Some of the ideas in the bill are half thought out and, as we know, have divided support even within the government caucus.
The central idea proposed is that we replace corporate and union contributions as the basis for financing political parties with forced funding from taxpayers. Our view is that this solution is worse than the problem.
If shareholders and union workers do not want their funds to be used to fund particular political parties, why should they be forced to do so as taxpayers?
If political parties depend on money from corporate CEOs and union bosses, why should they not get the money directly from those individuals and from others who share those points of view? Pointing out a minor flaw in the legislation, why should they not be able to fund parties even if they have firms of their own, their own personal holding companies, why would they not be able to fund parties through those vehicles if we are talking about their own money?
We should point out that a large amount of public money goes into federal political parties. We estimate that about 60% of the funding of federal political parties is already coming from taxpayers. Proposals in the legislation would take that number to at least 80%, if not higher.
I should point out that in opposing the legislation the Canadian Alliance is speaking from a position of principle. Even for us, we are not naive, a lot of what the government proposes would be in the short term interests of the Canadian Alliance. We, like all parties, would stand to gain money from this arrangement. In the long term our party and the system will be better if we get our money freely from the people who do in fact support us.
The worst idea in the legislation is new direct stipends to parties themselves based on previous electoral performance. In this case not only would parties be isolated from the feelings they may have from their own former supporters, but frankly even people who never supported them would be asked to support the party, whether it be the Bloc Québécois or the NDP or ourselves.
Not surprising, with this particular provision, the biggest beneficiary would be the Liberal Party. This is fairly typical in a range of proposals in electoral legislation, particularly broadcasting, where the Liberal Party gives itself more time, both paid and unpaid time, than any other party is entitled to.
I would point out that some of these provisions are probably unconstitutional. However, we know that has never bothered the Liberals in this particular area of legislation.
Another bad idea is enhancing rebates. Rebates would be linked only to spending. Very few taxpayers understand that their donations to political parties are subject to tax credit. However, even after that process, when political parties spend the money, the political parties get rebates in many cases both locally and nationally from that additional spending. This is just an addiction to spending. Once again, our same reservation applies here. It is not linked in any way to whether voters want further support of these parties.
I would point out by just looking at the provisions of this legislation that we are already talking, in addition to things I have mentioned, an additional $30 million to $40 million of more public funding.
There are some good ideas in here however even those are flawed. Disclosure ideas are good for leadership races. I have said we support that. Unfortunately, provisions in here would make it difficult for people to enter nomination fights to challenge incumbents.
(1530)
We talk about limits but there are no limits on contributions to private trusts of politicians, which is a very serious oversight. And, of course, there are no limits ultimately on the exposure of the taxpayers themselves to any of this funding.
Historically governments have sought consensus on electoral legislation. I hope we will do that in committee. The member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast will be handling this for us at committee. Some ideas here are worthy of acceptance, many should be discarded and some should be improved, but certainly the government cannot count on the support of the Canadian Alliance unless the philosophy behind unlimited taxpayer funding is changed.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I just want to applaud the government initiative on political financing.
In the context of introducing this bill, we all recall the serious problem of the sponsorship scandal. I think the government really needed to improve its image and do something to make Canadians regain faith in democracy and in the way things are done by federal politicians.
For many years, for nine years, the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for a change in political party financing. For more than 25 years, we have been fortunate in Quebec to have similar legislation to what is being introduced, legislation of openness, legislation that encourages democracy, legislation that assures the public that things are being done to the letter. If one thing is important in politics today, it is to ensure that politicians are above reproach.
The importance of lobbies in the political arena—people who have an ever-growing influence over the governments and politicians in power—cannot be denied. Fortunately, the new political financing legislation will allow the men and women of this House to be independent from the various lobbies and financial donations given in one form or another that allow groups, individuals or companies to have an inordinate influence on political decisions.
I am very pleased to tell the government that we are with it on this bill. Bloc members will support this initiative and we welcome it with great pleasure. We would simply say to people that yes, there is a price, but there is a price for democracy. We can spare no expense to assure the public that democracy will prevail, that anyone who wants to practice politics in Canada will be able to do so as freely as possible with equal opportunity for everyone. That is what we want and that is what the bill will allow us to do.
At first glance, the only problem I see with this bill is with the current leadership races. They are not covered by the rules. I know that this probably would have required specific provisions, but unfortunately, this seems to me to be a serious oversight.
As for the rest, I think I can say that as the members of the Bloc Quebecois have the opportunity to study the bill and review it, they will be very pleased to support it, as we are accustomed to living with similar legislation in Quebec.
I would invite all those who oppose this type of legislation to ask the voters of Quebec, regardless of their political stripes, if they would prefer to do without Quebec's legislation on the financing of political parties. The rate of satisfaction with this legislation—which has existed for more than 25 years now, if memory serves—is extremely high. Voters would not want to go back to the old ways. On the contrary, people are working now to enhance and improve aspects of the legislation that allow for healthy democracy, free of problems and influence.
I applaud the government's initiative. Once again, we will support the bill.
(1535)
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand and put our thoughts on this important legislation.
Before I begin, I would like to say, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the government House Leader, that the question I asked about 40 minutes ago in this Chamber dealing with the Canada Elections Act, he will note, if he looks at the transcript, had absolutely nothing to do with any technical briefing that was given earlier this day. It was all a matter of public record. Frankly, the answer was not warranted under the circumstances.
With regard to the legislation, it seems to me that the government is endeavouring to have three objectives. First, it says that we need greater transparency and enhanced disclosure. The New Democratic Party agrees with that.
Second, the government wants to promote fairness. Obviously all of us should be in agreement with that.
Third, and finally, the government wants to address the perception of big money having an undue influence in the political process. I will come back to that in just a moment.
This issue has been important for our party and for a number of voters in Canada for many years. As recently as this weekend at our leadership convention, yet another resolution was passed on the matter of donations to political parties. We said that it should be restricted only to individuals. We said that there should be third party limits in place, that public financing needs to be a part of the whole package, including an annual grant, which we note is in the legislation, and that adequate public financing needs to be in place before we can go ahead.
I think Canadians are genuinely concerned when they look at the disclosures on donations, for example, for the member for LaSalle—Émard, and they find that $10,000 have been contributed to that leadership campaign by something called the ABC Group, that 398536 Alberta Ltd. has contributed thousands of dollars, or that 90808353 Quebec Inc. has contributed money. We do not know and the Canadian public does not know.
Therefore it is accurate and proper that the government is moving forward with legislation that would prohibit this kind activity, this kind of funding to political parties and to leadership candidates or nominees for a riding association or for a nomination.
We want to look at the bill in detail. We agree with it in principle but we want to make sure that the funding is fairly allocated. We do support tightening the regulation of third party activities. I have not seen anything in here. The minister--
Hon. Don Boudria: It's in the courts.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay. The minister says that it is coming and we take him at his word.
However I would just observe that we have not had terrific luck in this country in having third party limits enforced by the courts. It may be that with these changes it will make it easier for the courts to rule in favour of restricting third party but that is something that we need to get into.
The individual cap of $10,000 is a worry in this sense. It is $3,000 in Quebec and Manitoba, the other two provinces that have this legislation. As I understand this, it is $10,000 per year to different political parties. It is not $10,000 total. It is $10,000 for the Progressive Conservatives, the New Democrats and the Liberals. It seems to us that it will be very difficult to have this perception that big money is influencing politics if we can have a big money individual donating $40,000 to $60,000 to political parties. We will want to look very carefully at that.
In conclusion, I want to say that we do support it in principle. We want to look at the details. They say the devil is in the details. We want democracy to be in the details.
(1540)
[Translation]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that the system of financing political parties in Canada needs to be reformed.
[English]
The government's sordid record is testimony to the improper impact of money and influence, from the scandals of Groupaction to the favours for friends which forced ministerial resignations to sending Mr. Gagliano to Denmark. I guess that is the government's version of a witness protection program.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage said it herself, and I quote her, “Obviously, there's a link between corporate donations and government policy...”. The great irony is that the Prime Minister who presided over this systematic abuse now proposes to slam the door after he has left the barn. That may simply be to settle scores within his own party but it is the opposite of leadership.
That said, we strongly support the principle of campaign finance reform and will study carefully the details of this proposal, the details being where the government usually hides the devil.
[Translation]
That is why my party, on the eve of the 1988 election, established the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing.
[English]
Through its work, that commission aimed to protect the system against undue influence. Moreover, at our national general meeting in August, my party proposed several more specific reforms.
We have to recognize that our political system has been changed significantly by the growth of narrow and powerful interest groups, many of them with access to large sums of money. It is not healthy to democracy for the party system to be so subject to the powerful and the rich. The appearance of improper influence is a significant source of cynicism about public life, and that too must be changed.
The Prime Minister has told reporters that this will be a question of confidence in his government. Why would he do that? This is a matter of fundamental political morality. Members should not be bound by the power of the party any more than they should be bound by the power of the purse. If the Prime Minister has the courage of his convictions, let him make and win his case on its merits. Let this important matter be subject to a free vote in this Parliament.
* * *
(1545)
Interparliamentary Delegations
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, which represented Canada at the meeting of the 48th annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, held in Istanbul, Turkey from November 15 to 19, 2002.
* * *
Canadian Safe Drinking Water Act
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-346, an act to ensure safe drinking water throughout Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to reintroduce this act known as an act to ensure safe drinking water throughout Canada.
Essentially it enshrines into law national drinking water standards as opposed to mere guidelines. Members may be aware that we are one of the few countries in the world that does not have true national standards where there is a public right to know if there is a substance in that water which could have a detrimental effect to human health.
I am only moving forward in this regard because of the motion passed in the House on May 8, 2001, where four of the five political parties endorsed this concept. It has been two years and the government has not moved, so I would like to use this act as a catalyst to spur debate so the government can fulfill the commitment it made to parliamentarians on May 8, 2001.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Criminal Code
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-347, an act to amend the Criminal Code (eliminating conditional sentencing for violent offenders).
He said: Mr. Speaker, my amendment to the Criminal Code is to remove schedule 1 crimes from the list of things that can be considered for conditional sentencing. Schedule 1 crimes, just for the information of members present, include such things as hijacking, sexual interference, sexual exploitation, indecent assault, attempted rape, rape, conspiracy to commit murder, robbery, hostage taking, and kidnapping.
When conditional sentencing was brought in we found and the public found to their horror that people convicted of such offences as violent rapes were given conditional sentencing, which is an option for a judge when he feels that it is not in the public interest to lock people in jail. They can be given a conditional sentence and serve no jail time.
I wish to remove violent offences from that sentencing option. The former Minister of Justice who is now the Minister of Industry has said that it was never intended that it should include violent offenders. This will correct that error.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Mr. Jim Gook: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of public safety, I ask that the bill not be read a second time but instead be referred directly to committee for all party non-partisan consideration, and I seek unanimous consent for that.
(1550)
The Deputy Speaker:
Does the hon. member for Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan have leave to ask for unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Peter Adams:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent to return to presenting reports from committees.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Committees of the House
Procedure and House Affairs
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership and associate membership of committees of the House and I should like to move concurrence at this time.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move:
|
|
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be modified as follows: Rodger Cuzner for Wayne Easter, Lynn Myers for Tony Tirabassi, Benoît Sauvageau for Pierre Brien. |
The Deputy Speaker:
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
Petitions
Child Pornography
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to present a petition duly certified by the Clerk on behalf of one of my constituents, Deborah Moss, from Canaan Forks, New Brunswick.
The petition calls upon Parliament to protect all children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify child pornography in any shape or form be appropriately outlawed in this nation. It is the minimum that we owe our children. I appreciate the opportunity to present this petition.
* * *
Canada Post
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents calling upon Parliament to support rural route letter couriers.
Letter couriers on rural routes are calling upon Parliament to repeal one paragraph of the Canada Post Corporation Act, section 13(5), which prevents them from bargaining collectively to improve their pay and working conditions. The petitioners believe that this denial of a fundamental right allows Canada Post Corporation to maintain salaries and working conditions at a level that is unfair and that this constitutes discrimination against rural workers.
* * *
Child Pornography
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to present another petition, bringing the total to 3,645 constituents from the Airdrie, Calgary and Cochrane districts in my riding, calling on the government to come up with legislation immediately to stamp out and obliterate child pornography from the face of the earth, and I certainly support that petition.
* * *
Stem Cell Research
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians, including people from my own riding of Mississauga South, on the subject of stem cell research. These petitioners accept, as I do, that life begins at conception and they would like to draw to the attention of the House that Canadians support ethical stem cell research, which has already shown encouraging potential to provide cures and therapies for illnesses and diseases.
They also want to point out that non-embryonic stem cells, also known as adult stem cells, have also shown significant progress without the immune rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells. The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to support legislative measures which support adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary for Canadians.
* * *
Canada Post
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from citizens of various parts of Ontario who are concerned about the fact that the Canada Post Corporation Act prohibits rural route mail couriers from having collective bargaining rights and they call upon Parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
* * *
(1555)
Stem Cell Research
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of citizens of Northumberland county who petition on behalf of numerous people who suffer illnesses such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, muscular dystrophy and spinal cord injury. They point out that ethical stem cell research has proved to be valuable for addressing the conditions of such people and they call upon Parliament to focus its legislative efforts on adult stem cell research to find cures and therapies necessary to treat such illnesses and to help Canadians with those illnesses.
* * *
[Translation]
Questions on the Order Paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker:
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
Motions for Papers
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers Nos. P-15 and P-16 in the name of the right hon. member for Calgary Centre.
|
|
That an Order of the House do issue for the production of copies of all reports of the Ethics Counsellor concerning the former Solicitor General. |
|
|
That an Order of the House do issue for the production of copies of all reports of the Ethics Counsellor concerning the former Minister of National Defence. |
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to have the parliamentary secretary please explain to the House why it is that he has had answers on the production of papers for two of the questions that have been tabled by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, but there are still ten outstanding. Could the parliamentary secretary please tell us why the other ten have not been answered?
Mr. Geoff Regan:
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I do not have the information on that in front of me. I will have to check that and get back to my hon. colleague. I believe those answers are in departments and are on their way here. I hope to have them soon, but I will get back to my hon. colleague on the status of those answers.
Mr. Speaker, the report in question is considered advice provided for the use of government and is exempt from release--this is Motion No. P-15, by the way--as per the Prime Minister's statement in the House of Commons on Tuesday, October 22, 2002. On that date, in response to a question from the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister stated:
|
|
I received the report from the ethics counsellor. He is a counsellor to me. When he is advising me, the ministers, members of Parliament or bureaucrats, these communications are privileged between the adviser and the Prime Minister. |
Therefore I ask the right hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I do not withdraw that motion. I think it is nonsense for the reports of the ethics counsellor to be hidden from this Parliament. It is a question of fundamental principle and right of this Parliament and the people of Canada to know the facts, so the question stands, Sir.
The Deputy Speaker:
The matter is transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-16 in the name of the right hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Mr. Geoff Regan:
Mr. Speaker, there was no written report on this issue, therefore I ask the right hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Right Hon. Joe Clark:
Mr. Speaker, I will take that matter to debate.
The Deputy Speaker:
Accordingly the matter is transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Geoff Regan:
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
(1600)
The Deputy Speaker:
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker:
I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, government orders will be extended by 23 minutes.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
ASSISTED HUMAN REPRODUCTION ACT
The House resumed from January 27 consideration of Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 4.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise again on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to complete my remarks on Bill C-13 on assisted human reproductive technologies and related research.
We oppose the bill unless it is amended. Before I continue my remarks I will summarize what I said yesterday.
The Canadian Alliance minority report recommended that the final legislation clearly recognize the human embryo as human life and that the statutory declaration include the phrase “respect for human life”. All human beings possess the fundamental human rights of life and freedom. I also said that it is in the best interest of every child to know who his or her parents are. No sperm or egg donors should be anonymous.
AHRs, assisted human reproduction clinics, would have to be licensed and tightly regulated. All regulations must be laid before Parliament and automatically referred to the health committee.
I also stated that I strongly support and encourage health sciences research and development, and research on adult stem cells. Thus, we are calling for more funding of adult stem cell research. I support provisions against human and therapeutic cloning, animal-human hybrids, sex selection, gene line alteration, buying or selling of embryos, and paid surrogacy.
Commercial surrogacy would be banned but the expenses of surrogate mothers could be repaid. Thus, surrogate mothers could result in effective commercial surrogacy. That is why we oppose Motion No. 52.
The health minister wants to undo the amendments made at committee which would make counselling for surrogacy mandatory and which were supported by the Canadian Alliance. It waters down the intent of members of the health committee that such counselling be required, ideally by a third party and not by a fertility clinic.
Becoming a surrogate is a very serious matter to the extent that the health committee saw fit to amend the bill to prohibit surrogacy for women under age 21. Surrogacy can have profound effects on relationships between husband and wife, within families, between surrogate and adopting parents, and most important, on the surrogate children themselves. Therefore counselling should be mandatory. I wonder why the health minister is not explaining or defending her amendment.
We also oppose Motion No. 72. The minister again wants to undo the committee amendment requiring board members of AHR agencies to come under conflict of interest rules. Board members should not have commercial interests in the field of AHR or related research, for example, fertility clinics, biotech companies, et cetera.
Imagine an employee or investor in a biotech company with a financial interest in embryonic stem cell research making decisions for Canadians on the regulation of such research, including the definition of the word “necessary” as specified in clause 40. Or imagine a director of a fertility clinic making regulations on the limits of sperm and egg donations or the number of embryos produced for IVF treatments. Such conflicts of interest need to be prevented in the legislation. The minister needs to explain and defend these amendments.
In a nutshell, we oppose the bill. On the particular motions I mentioned, I indicated whether we support or oppose them. I would like to make clear that I support stem cell research but we would like to put a moratorium on embryonic research for a period of three years.
(1605)
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House of Commons in the new year on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East. I am very happy to speak to Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproductive technologies and related research.
As we all know, at the beginning of the year the Clonaid company said that it had cloned a human being, the first cloned baby. This sent shock waves around the world. All religious leaders and people who want dignity given to human life were shocked and stunned by the news. I was stunned also. I hope we do not go along with that research.
The bill is an attempt to not go toward the route of cloning, but the route of research, the route of human reproduction technology. There are a lot of consequences for this research.
We tried to draft this in a bill in committee. A committee researched the issue and presented its report. The report indicated that we needed to address the issue and bring in rules and regulations and try to stop the free-for-all research which has the potential of going in the direction that society in general does not want to go and respect the basic principle of human life.
The government presented Bill C-13 to try and address the issue. While the intent is there to have some control and some rules and regulations, some sort of ethical behaviour and ethical dimensions to this point, nevertheless like anything else the government does, it is job that has only been half done. The bill tries to do everything and in the process, it ends up doing nothing. That is the essence of why the Canadian Alliance opposes Bill C-13.
My colleague has presented many amendments. We hope that these amendments will be accepted and will make the bill stronger. Then we can address all the issues and ensure that there are no loopholes or cracks in the system. This is a subject that is creating a tremendous amount of debate among Canadians.
In Motion No. 72 the government has created an agency that will be given the mandate to create some ethical guidelines as well as rules for doing research on stem cells, whether they are embryonic or adult stem cells.
The problem as usual is there seems to be a lack of commitment by the government. It is somehow afraid to take a tough stand. There are no conflict of interest guidelines. The minister has the power to appoint anyone to the board.
(1610)
If the minister appoints a person who falls under the conflict of interest rules, what stops that person from having a conflict, such as working for a biotech company? Of course, the minister will say that it is not possible and they are going to do due diligence. But again what is the problem? Why can it not be put in the bill to make it transparent that a person who has a conflict of interest will not be appointed to the board? That is clear, plain and simple. Yet that is missing, and it gives the authority to the minister.
Canadians know very well the record of the government on transparency. They know about the boondoggle in the gun registry.
This afternoon the government introduced the bill on political party financing. In the dying days of his regime, the Prime Minister is now bringing in this legislation. He wants to leave a legacy but he has opened up to the fact that his Kyoto legacy is going off on a tangent and his African legacy is having severe problems. He wants to create that as a legacy, despite opposition from his own members. He is talking about bringing in transparency, but the government's record on transparency has left Canadians shaking their heads. With this bill, it is again showing up here.
It is amazing how the government is so afraid to step into the area where people are held more accountable. I do not know what the government is afraid of. The Prime Minister will not give accountability even to his backbenchers. Look at the vote we had on choosing the committee chairmen. The Prime Minister is the one who had problems with that.
The government's record on transparency and allowing openness is on the record and Canadians will not buy into it. The same thing is happening on the subject of stem cell research, which is a subject of the future. The potential for research and for finding cures for many of what ails the human race through stem cells is tremendous. There is a desire to see that this research carries on, but in a manner that is acceptable to the Canadian people. We do not want to go down the road of what we heard when that company came out of nowhere and said it had cloned a human being.
It is critically important as we debate this bill that we in the official opposition point out what we think are the flaws of this bill. Therefore, it is difficult for us support the bill.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill.
Right off the bat, I would like to commend one person and a group. I want to commend the Alliance Party critic, the member for Yellowhead, for the outstanding work he has done in dealing with this issue. Along with that, I congratulate the committee which has come up with some pretty good recommendations and amendments at the committee level that have been presented to the minister, which are now amendments that the minister wants to eliminate and undo. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why that is the case.
The minister should be in the House explaining for example why there should not be mandatory counselling for relationships between husbands and wives, surrogate parents, children and all the people involved. Counselling should be mandatory because of the possible deep effects on the relationships of the individuals involved.
Why in the world would the minister want to not make that kind of counselling mandatory as recommended by the committee? It makes no sense for that kind of motion to be proposed without the minister standing in this place and trying to explain to people why that kind of a change would be so necessary. It makes absolutely no sense that she is not available to defend the stand in that regard.
I apologize if I have wandered off into things I should not say, but I do want to point out that--
(1615)
The Deputy Speaker:
Let me interrupt very briefly to remind the House, since we have just come back from the Christmas break period, that the longstanding practice in our Chamber has always been to not refer to the absence of any members in the House given the very varied tasks that we are all called upon to perform in our duties.
Mr. Myron Thompson:
Mr. Speaker, I did not wish to refer to the absence or presence of anyone. I just wanted to refer to the fact that there has been no explanation from the department or the minister's office to explain to me and other members why this kind of proposal would be brought forward.
As the opposition, one of the major problems we have had with practically all departments, HRDC, justice, heritage and so on, has been accountability. That is one area in which the government has demonstrated its weakness over and over again. For the minister to want to undo an amendment presented by the committee which required the board members of the human reproduction agency--
The Deputy Speaker:
Again I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I have a point of order from the hon. member for Yellowhead.
Mr. Rob Merrifield:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is arguably one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will be dealing with in the 37th Parliament. It is important that we look at it in all seriousness. I would like to ask for a quorum call.
The Deputy Speaker:
I see quorum. Resuming debate.
Hon. David Anderson:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the record, while there happens to be a quorum in the room, I notice only three members of the Alliance, one to listen to the hon. member--
The Deputy Speaker:
Respectfully, that was not a point of order but I am encouraged that more members are present in the Chamber. At any time it is always very pleasing to the Speaker.
Mr. Myron Thompson:
Mr. Speaker, if I did not shame the environment minister, who would make such a mistake after I have just been severely scolded for talking about who is here and who is not, he should not be doing those kinds of things. One would think that as a minister of the crown he would know better.
We were talking about accountability before we had to call for quorum. Accountability is one of the biggest weaknesses of the Liberal government. It has been demonstrated over and over again and has been reported in every Auditor General report that I have ever read. Accountability is so weak that we cannot even ask for receipts from some ministers who claim up to $80,000 to $100,000 worth of expenses.
However we have a committee doing a great job of making sure that the board members on the agency, under Motion No. 72, would be accountable. The committee wanted board members to come under the conflict of interest rules. That makes sense. That is called good accountability. We cannot allow conflicts of interest in these particular matters. These issues are extremely important.
We now have a minister who wants to undo that amendment. She is not worried about appointing different individuals to this board in regard to possible conflicts of interest and she wants the board to report directly to the minister.
When will we decide in this House that we are a Parliament of the people, that we have a responsibility to all Canadians and that reporting to Parliament is a good idea when it comes to boards and committees that are working on our behalf? Why do they always report to one?
The lack of accountability is a disgrace. It is shameful and it is a practice that ought to be stopped. I would hope that the governing bodies would start thinking about that. If we are going to truly be accountable to the people who elect us and put us in our seats, then we have a right to know what is going on as well as the minister.
Unfortunately, we have found over the past that reporting is sometimes not as accurate as it ought to be, and we would like to hear it directly. I, for one, as a member of Parliament, would like to hear directly from these various committees that are working on our behalf, instead of just the minister who insists that they report to him or her and no one else.
If we were to put our imaginations to work we could imagine all kinds of things that could go wrong with the kind of body of people who would not have to live under conflict of interest rules, and maybe some other things that could have a major impact on what they are trying to do with this particular legislation.
I really encourage all members to not support Motion No. 72, in particular, and not to support Motion 52 as it weakens the intent of the committee and its hard work in trying to come up with the answers that would make this whole idea work tremendously.
We are quite enthused with the reports that we have been getting on certain aspects of adult stem cell research, even from the umbilical cord of a newborn, and how it can be used in a positive way. I think we could just forget about creating embryos for that purpose. It is a bad idea.
Mr. Speaker, I know you might not think that the speech last night on TV by the President of the United States, George Bush, would have much to do with the topic that we are discussing today but has to do with one thing. I was proud to hear the President of the United States stand in his place and say that under his representation he would guarantee to the people of America that cloning would never be allowed in that land. I would like to see our Prime Minister rise to his feet and say that under his leadership, and as long as he had a say, that cloning would never be part of Canada's plan. Cloning is not something we should get into. Cloning is not for humans to decide how this should happen.
(1620)
I like the old process of creating humans myself. Maybe that is because I am a little older than some, but cloning is such a dangerous thing that I really appreciate the president's comments on behalf of the American people. I wish the Prime Minister would make the same kind of comments on behalf of Canadians.
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we are back again speaking about the assisted human reproduction act. It came before us previously as Bill C-56. We are talking now mainly about the Group No. 4 amendments. I want to make some general comments before I get into the specifics of the Group No. 4 motions and amendments.
One of the reasons that we need to have a discussion about this important issue is that we are setting the stage, not just for a single bill but for a legislated attitude toward people. We are setting up a bill that sets out a legislative attitude toward other human beings in our society. The conclusions that we reach in the House about our attitude and our decisions about other human beings will have great consequences.
For example, we have seen throughout this century what happens when governments and ideologies decide that individual human beings are not unique and that they are only basic economic units. I had the opportunity in university to sit under three years of teaching that bombarded us with Karl Marx's political theory that all events can be analyzed from a particular economic perspective, and that human beings then must fit into that perspective and into that analysis. Individuals are never seen as unique in that ideology. They are seen as a commodity that needs to be used.
Interestingly enough, through the last century we have seen that theory lived out through various socialistic and communistic governments on this earth. In the last century there has been more brutality from those regimes than anywhere that we have seen in the history of mankind. It is important that we have a unique view of the uniqueness of human life and what it means.
I can think of a couple of examples. In Stalin's Russia, one of the results of his decision to get control of the middle class farming communities was that he was willing to starve them until they disappeared. He had no concern for the uniqueness, the individuality or the greatness of human life.
In China, even today, we see that it subjects its individual citizens to the wishes of what it would call the collective. We see this show up in different situations where there is brutality toward people who may believe differently than their leadership does.
In the Sudan we see another socialist regime that is only too happy to wage war for money. It has little responsibility toward its own people and it seems to care little about the human life of its citizens.
It is important that we decide what our attitude and our view will be toward human life. Where there is a weak position taken regarding human uniqueness and individuality, there is definitely a loss of compassion for others. I would suggest that we are not as immune from this as greatly as we think we might be.
We see a number of places where the government already refuses to deal with issues that involve the value of human life. We spent a day earlier this week talking about child protection and child pornography. I would suggest that the unwillingness of the government to deal directly and decisively with child pornography is one such example of a government that is refusing to deal with those issues that say that human life has ultimate value.
Last spring we had the opportunity to meet with the police officers who deal with this material. After seeing their presentation I would agree with my colleague from Wild Rose that there is absolutely no excuse for allowing this to continue.
I was embarrassed the other day by the NDP's position that as long as people can create things out of their own imagination, that there needed to be some reason to defend that. After talking to the police officers who have to deal with the child pornography issue on a daily basis, I guess I do not have the tolerance that others might. This material is repugnant. It is abhorrent. The failure to deal with the issue really touches at the heart of how the government views the people who are its citizens.
We need to take a look at a couple of questions. One of them is, when does human life begin? Although present law says that human life begins at birth, that is a ridiculous position from a scientific perspective, and it really is nonsense. I was reminded of that the other day when I saw one of the beer companies' advertisements. They had a picture of a fetus in the womb on their poster. The point that was made was “When you drink, she feels it”. I thought it was interesting that beer companies will accept the fact that fetuses and embryos are human beings but our government refuses to do that.
(1625)
Clearly, I would suggest that the point at which being becomes human is when the union of the genetic material takes place and when we have the completion of the DNA package. Whether we want to embrace that or not, scientifically that is the only point where human life really begins.
Scientists have thrown out a couple of red herrings. One in particular is when they say that they have picked a 14 day period and after that 14 days is the arbitrary decision that now this is human life. That decision has not been based on science. It basically has been meant to avoid the scientific discussion and to stay away from the discussion of when does human life really begin.
I would suggest that scientists generally have failed the test of speaking clearly on when human life begins. Because of that, they run the risk of disqualifying themselves by not dealing honestly with this issue. It has become for many scientists more of an economic than a scientific or ethical decision. They want to have the open field. They want to have the free rein to run the experiments. They do not want to deal with the moral choices that need to be made so they try to avoid doing that at all costs. It is important that someone in the country address this issue and I would suggest that it is the responsibility of Parliament to deal seriously and decisively with it.
I think we can accept that human life is put together at conception when the DNA material is put together, but there is a second important question that needs to be asked. What is human life worth? Throughout history we have traditionally valued human life from its natural beginning. There has been much discussion of it over the years but most belief systems, most religions and most philosophies have accepted that until the last few years.
In places and times we have seen the devaluing of that idea and that value. I guess one of the prime examples would be Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany where there was a prevailing ideology that he set forth, and that was that not all people were worthy of living out their natural lives. He targeted particular groups. We know that he targeted racial groups, the weak, the handicapped, the visually identifiable groups and in lots of places skin colour and complexion was enough to be questioned and persecuted.
I am reminded of a saying that no one does what they think is wrong. We all justify our behaviour and we are prepared to do that. We need to remember that Hitler's focus was on genetics; it was just on a different stage of development. We need to be very careful where we go with this issue, with this bill and how we begin to treat other human beings and human life.
I want to talk a bit about what is the result of taking a low view of human life. If we cannot come to an agreement on what human life is worth, we will always have inevitable consequences from that. One thing that happens if we set a low view of human life and we do not say that human life is unique right from its beginning, is that we always devalue the defenceless and the ones who do not have a voice. I think we have begun to see this already in the Netherlands where many who are in hospitals do not even know that they are being euthanized. They do not have a voice. They do not have the ability or the strength to say no. Because of that they are not given the voice to say no.
As I mentioned, it seems there is an inability to deal with the child pornography issue. This government cannot bring itself to deal with the issue. It shows a willingness to live with a bad and I guess some people would call it an evil court decision. A casual attitude to human life begins to manifest itself in so many different areas and I hope we are not beginning to see that in our own country.
A casual attitude to human life also shows a willingness to assign different degrees of worth to different human beings. We had the issue a few years ago, and it will continue, with Tracy Latimer, the choice her father made to end her life and the government's uncomfortable silence about that issue. As we look at the issue of human life, I hope it will not progress to include others who have what some people would say no use in our society, and that is the handicapped and the elderly.
I know my time is running out and I will have an opportunity to speak to this issue later. However we need to reconsider what we do here, take it seriously and treat it very carefully as we move into this area and issue of what we do with human life.
(1630)
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this group of amendments that have been proposed to the new bill on reproductive technology.
We are very pleased that an agency will be created to oversee the operations of assisted reproductive technology clinics. We think it is very important that there be some oversight. Most other mature democracies have had this for some time. Assisted human reproduction should not be a wide open field simply because from these activities come children whose interests must be protected, both before the fact and after the fact. We think the establishment of an agency is very good news, it is long overdue, and we would like to see it put into place very quickly.
The whole area of assisted human reproduction, as we know, needs to be more tightly regulated. With advances in science and some people pushing the envelope way past where moral and ethical prudence would dictate, we have the need to have tighter regulations to make the whole process safer and more effective for prospective parents to use.
Assisted human reproduction clinics will now have to be licensed and regulated by this agency which is created by this bill. The agency will be subject to access to information so that citizens can have some oversight, some input and some idea how the agency is operating, and it will have some accountability mechanism.
We support the amendment that would require the agency to produce standardized forms and have some standardized information that is required to be presented to individuals who use assisted human reproduction. We think that kind of standardization will be very helpful and necessary as people donate, use and dispose of human reproductive material.
The Auditor General, in February 2001, made it very clear that Canada has serious problems in its sperm banks, such as poor record keeping and ineligible donors. That is pretty scary when we think that the whole purpose of these activities is to produce children who will be affected by any shoddy or inappropriate operations that lead to them coming into being. Uniformity and standardization is extremely important to protect the interests of children.
However the minister wants to undo some of the committee recommendations. We are not in favour of the minister's move to do this.
First, the minister wants to undo a recommendation that people who sit on this agency to regulate assisted human reproductions must not have a conflict of interest. The minister says that it is okay if people who are regulating assisted human reproduction are also players in the whole area.
It does not take a lot of imagination to understand that people with a vested interest in the scope and what is allowed should not make the decisions. They should not be the same people. We do not understand why the minister would say that it is okay for people who have a conflict of interest to make decisions in this important area. The minister is not here to explain why this would be so.
(1635)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
I have to remind the member that she cannot refer to the absence of any member.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy:
Mr. Speaker, let me rephrase that, and I do apologize. The minister has not explained to the House why she feels the amendment is important or necessary. Absent the rationale behind this, we can only criticize and oppose the move to say that people with a conflict of interest should make these important decisions. Heads of projects and people who have financial interests in assisted human reproduction clearly would have a lack of credibility and objectivity that would be very necessary to make decisions in this area.
We also have a problem with the minister's amendment to repeal the committee's recommendation that the agency overseeing assisted reproduction should be composed of 50% women, again because the minister has failed to inform the House as to what her rationale might be.
We do know that assisted human reproduction is something that is very much targeted to meet the needs of women. Men are also involved, particularly when there is a family situation, although not always. We think there should be a very strong component of input from women when these kinds of decisions are being made. Maybe it does not need to be 50% but certainly there is a concern that women may be closed out to an unacceptable degree from input into the operation of the agency. Because they are the main clients and customers, I guess one could say the ones who access this important technology, it is important that their voice be heard.
Again, we would like to know why the recommendation has been withdrawn. We want to ensure that women are not closed out by their male peers in a male dominated area of endeavour without some good reason. I would urge this to be revisited by the House.
Board members should be chosen for their wisdom and judgment according to the health committee. We certainly agree with that. There should be a very strong merit principal but the people who are most impacted by this activity should also have strong input.
We think there is merit for amendments that would ensure that the agency is adequately funded. That just makes sense. There is no point in creating an agency that does not have the money to do the job. We support an amendment that says the agency would establish a dispute resolution process which may include arbitration in case there is disagreement between the agency, donors, licensees or any other relevant parties. I guess it is pretty hard, if the people running the agency can have a conflict of interest, to see how this dispute resolution mechanism could work fairly but it obviously will be extremely important.
There is an interesting provision in this group of amendments with respect to the reporting that is required of the agency. Originally the agency would report to Parliament annually but the minister would like to change it to say that the minister would report on behalf of the agency. We disagree with the report of the agency being filtered through the minister. We think the less political filtering there is in this important area the better. I would like very much to see the minister explain why she is putting the amendment forward because we would oppose it simply on the basis that it puts a undesirable barrier between Parliament and the agency.
(1640)
Lastly, we believe that people entering into an agreement to produce surrogate children must have counselling. The minister would like to remove the requirement for counselling and say it would be made available. We think it must be made mandatory.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the report stage amendments in Group No. 4 to Bill C-13, the reproductive technology bill.
As has been mentioned before, our concern is that this new agency be held accountable, and that it have transparent procedures and processes that would allow Canadians to follow-through on how this legislation would affect them, and how the government would respond to the new changes in the legislation.
We are concerned with the changes that the minister has made that go contrary to the recommendations that came from the health committee when it studied this reproductive technology bill in great detail. The health committee was quite clear that this was going in a new direction, and that there were some practices and procedures that would cause some concern to Canadians. The committee was concerned that there be protection and some control over how this technology would be used.
The committee was quite upfront with how it saw the agency that would oversee this legislation. It was concerned how the agency would run its business, be held accountable and responsible, and report to Parliament. The minister, for whatever reasons, wants to hold control within her own department and within her own person over the response to Parliament and the accountability factor.
We have problems with that. We feel that in order for something to be accountable and transparent there is a need to separate it from politics as much as possible. There is a willingness on the part of this party to see that this agency be somewhat removed from the minister so it can do its job, look at the technology, look at how the bill would be utilized, how the regulations would be upheld, and respond in kind to that.
There was a concern felt by committee members that because of the issue there needed to be a presence of the female gender on the board. The committee felt it was important that women have the ability to be part of monitoring reproductive technology regulations in legislation. For some reason, and I find it quite surprising, the minister felt that was not necessary. She felt that an all male board would suffice. Even more startling, she felt that an agency consisting of one person might suffice. That causes us some concern.
There must be greater detail as to how this agency would be put together, who would become members and who it would represent. I for one think it is important that an agency of this nature dealing with the subject of reproductive technology be representative of some of the different groups of people with the knowledge and ability to monitor what happens from this day forward. The agency should have some medical persons on it. It would be sensible to have some scientific representation. It should have some lay representation, representing ordinary citizens and how they would feel on these issues. That is something we would like to see changed to better reflect what the health committee recommended in the first place.
We would like the minister to reconsider how she would form this agency and who she would appoint. We would like the minister to ensure that a female would be sitting on the board. Now would be the time to address these concerns and to amend the legislation to ensure that these concerns are considered.
(1645)
Another concern that our party is expressing is that when people want to build a family and have children, and they use the new reproductive technologies that they are fully made aware of what options they have available to them. Different reproductive technologies are becoming more and more accessible. More individuals are aware that they can use these technologies to start a family. I am not sure that there is full disclosure as to what their options are, what processes are involved, and what some of the legal ramifications might be.
The Canadian Alliance feels that there should be some set-up where these individuals have not only available to them, but are encouraged to understand the legal issues. Mandatory is a harsh word. They should go into reproductive technology process with the full knowledge of what it means.
I do not think it is too much to ask that the minister ensure that all information is made available so that individuals would not end up in an unforeseen situation or one that they did not know about.
I will broaden the discussion by saying that we have seen where this has happened with pharmaceutical drugs, where individuals were referred to the use of a pharmaceutical drug without knowing in depth what the side effects might be and what harm could be caused. Now we are seeing a ramification in the legal perspective of how not having full disclosure of the risks taken come back through the courts. This is a very expensive process when something happens and a person was not made aware of what could happen.
We must take the same direction with reproductive technology that we should have taken with pharmaceutical drugs and the mandatory provision of the medical people to advise patients of what the risks are. We could avoid many legal parameters if issues were dealt with up front. If making it mandatory is the only way it can be done, then perhaps that is how the procedure has to be done.
Thus we could ensure that the individuals who are taking advantage of reproductive technologies know what they are getting into. I do not think that would be too much to ask. It is something that as we get into this whole new field that will change day by day, that we can provide that kind of background and knowledge to individuals seeking this method.
We are looking for change through Group No. 4 amendments. The two issues would be the agency and how it is put together, who is sitting on the agency and how it would report to Parliament, not the minister. The other issue is the mandatory counselling of every individual who is taking advantage of reproductive technology, or some kind of sharing of knowledge so that they fully understand and accept the dimensions of the procedures they would be undertaking.
I wish to encourage the government to have an open mind and not to shy away from making amendments to legislation to broaden it and make it more definitive, to change it so that it is a better piece of legislation, so we can avoid some pitfalls that we may find in the future simply by taking our time and doing it properly the first time.
* * *
(1650)
Report of the Privacy Commissioner
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Before resuming debate I wish to inform the House that there was an error in the tabling of the report of the privacy commissioner concerning substantially similar provincial legislation. This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and not as earlier announced, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
* * *
Assisted Human Reproduction Act
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 4.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into this debate from the point of view of an older person who has been around longer than most people and not only as a father, but a grandfather of eight. I have spent my entire professional life working with people. As a member of Parliament, almost half of the people who come into my office are not there for pure political reasons, but more for counselling or asking advice. I respect that and I am honoured to have them do so.
Canadians are concerned about this issue. We, as representatives of the people, should think very carefully about how we process and word the act so it is for all Canadians. I cannot for the life of me see how the federal government representing this portion of the health committee could ever come up with the idea of turning this problem over to the provincial governments, where there would be 10 different types of rules. I know it is not proposing that, but because it falls under health I would hope people would understand that this is a national program and a national policy that is being developed.
I want to make that abundantly clear because if we did not make that clear there would be so much misunderstanding that people would be blaming some of the pitfalls that they may encounter on the provincial government. All the reports and amendments of the committee that will be formed should come to the House. At the same time I am not denying that it should go to the Minister of Health, but it absolutely should come to the House.
If this is not a standardized procedure in the counselling, then that is a deep concern of mine. The people who would be doing the counselling for this particular issue, no matter which province they represent in the process of counselling, and I would imagine that is the route it would go, should be as unique and as close as it possibly could be across Canada. That is very important.
The standardization of the forms must be the same in British Columbia as they are in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is very important in Canada for the reason that if there is a fundamental error, then the blame would come back to Parliament. We would insist, therefore, that this be considered a national issue.
The public needs to be informed that this is not a business deal where someone says, “I cannot get pregnant and I want to make a deal”, and so on. That is why we must ensure that the people who wish to enter into adoption and surrogacy are mature, well counselled, well trained and well informed before we proceed. This is not an individual business deal like going out and buying a car or changing a place of residence. This is very serious, indeed.
(1655)
I would recommend to this committee, and I know that a lot of work has been done, that no member of this committee should have any commercial interest or profit motive whatsoever while sitting as a member of this committee. This has to be absolutely, totally divorced from the whole procedure: that he or she will not gain anything personally by sitting on this committee. Also, I think the choice of this committee should break down all political barriers. I see this committee as being made up of wise, experienced, prudent people, not necessarily just scientists or doctors, but people who have been around, as we say, and know the results of what could develop from this.
Let us get it right and let us get it right the first time. Let us not weaken our stance of what the committee represented or what they have spoken about, that most of all, members of Parliament, whether they like it or not, no matter where they are sitting in the House, will indeed be the subject of intense scrutiny if the proper procedures are not put in place the first time around.
(1700)
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-13 again with regard to this group of amendments. My hon. colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain mentioned some of the issues which seem so apparent that we should not have to be discussing them. Somebody in an agency that will govern this reproductive technology part of our society should not have a vested interest in, let us say, a fertility clinic. That just makes sense. Sometimes we are accused of not making too much sense when we form laws, but this one does.
Before I start I would like to recognize the fact that at present the member for Yellowhead sits on the health committee and is handling the bill for the official opposition, but previously, Preston Manning, the former leader of our party, took on this file for the party. The work he did in bringing all this together, the knowledge he brought to the table, and the people he brought in to present their views on this issue resulted in probably one of the best committees and one of the best reports that was ever put together in the House, certainly in my time. I just want to recognize the fact that Preston Manning had a lot to do with this investigation and this report.
The issue of surrogacy is one that is a really important part of all of this. We feel that Motion No. 52 brought forward by the health minister wants to undo an amendment that was made at committee, and here we go again. I bring this up time and time again. There is good work done at committee. People are brought in as witnesses and an all party committee decides what would be best based on the information that has been heard, but then the minister comes along and tries to reverse the committee's work. To me that is just wrong.
Here is what the health minister is trying to do on the issue of counselling for people who want to be surrogates. The health minister has been saying that counselling should just be made available where needed, that it should not be mandatory, that people who go into this should have counselling just when needed. However, on this whole aspect of the reproductive technology debate, we feel that it should be mandatory, that people should know full well all the ramifications and all the problems that exist. Examples from other countries can be brought forward in regard to how complex this is, how it affects the mother and father, how it affects the people who are adopting and the relationships that occur, and how it can open up a real minefield of legal problems.
It is important that a lot of counselling goes into this. It should be mandatory. People going into this surrogacy situation should be very aware of all the problems. We will be opposing Motion No. 52 on those grounds: that the committee had it right and the minister is trying to go back on that.
We will be supporting Motion No. 55. This is the one that my colleague was referring to previously. It deals with what are to me pretty common sense issues on the standardization of forms and information disclosures to be used in the case of a donation. It just makes absolute sense to have that in the bill. That is why the amendment is there. We will be supporting it. The forms should be used in all fertility clinics and in any other transactions involving human reproductive material.
There have been problems in the past with poor record keeping at some of the sperm banks. Sometimes there is no way to track who the donors were and what the ramifications were when something went wrong. It is very important to have uniform rules and to apply them to all aspects of the industry. Whether it is a fertility clinic, a hospital or the agency, everybody should be playing under the same rules.
(1705)
Motion No. 72 is another one that we have some problems with. This is a motion whereby the minister is trying to undo what the committee has done. One of the things the committee wanted to be absolutely sure of was that anyone who is to sit on the agency that will control this reproductive technology system has no conflict of interest in any of the decisions to be made. One would think that would be a natural, but again it is not. It needs to be spelled out, but it is not. Let us just say that someone who runs a fertility clinic somehow gets on the board and decides on limits, such as how many embryo experiments could take place and so on. That needs to be clarified. It is not going to be in this legislation because the minister has tried to undo what the committee has done.
On the whole issue of the agency, the agency absolutely has to be separate from the influence of this industry. Limits need to be placed on how many embryos can be created. The problem I see in this is that if there is not some pretty strict control then we could be creating an industry trading in embryos. That is something we need to avoid at all costs. That is trading in human life.
There is also the whole aspect of the difference between an embryonic stem cell and an adult stem cell. Most of the advancement and good work and some of the hope that has been given to people with Parkinson's, MS and some of these terrible diseases have come from the work and research done on adult stem cells. The embryonic stem cell research is lacking. There are problems; people would have to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their lives. There has been so much advancement on the adult side that we feel there should be at least a three year moratorium on embryonic stem cell research until what has gone on and what is going on in the adult research side is explored in more depth.
Just in the last year there have been some startling and wonderful things happening in adult stem cell research. If we continue down that road and expend that effort to explore the adult side of it before we get into the embryonic side, we feel that there will be enough advancement and good things coming out that this whole embryonic issue, this aspect of creating life to destroy life, will not have to be brought into play.
These are just some of the concerns that we have with the bill and the amendments in Group No. 4. We will be speaking later on Group No. 5 as we move through the list of amendments.
However, once again, to me the whole aspect that a committee can sit and study and bring forward reports and amendments and then the minister can try to undo the committee's work is something that needs to be addressed, not at this point in time, but certainly it needs to be addressed in regard to the whole functioning of the House.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today once again probably in some shock, very much like I did at the beginning of the week when we discussed child pornography. Today we are talking about embryonic stem cell research. We are talking once again about a tiny cell which is a tiny baby. We are talking about life and every one of us in the House of Commons has to be so cognizant of that.
I cannot believe we would think about doing this in Canada. The other day in Saint John, New Brunswick I received in the mail a little plastic model which was supposed to be a 12 day old embryo. It was tiny baby. If everybody in the House saw it, they would not even talk about embryonic stem cell research.
The hon. member from the Alliance who just spoke said there was adult stem cell research and that there was no ethical problems with that. There is a much more promising future for it as well. We do not oppose that. As was stated, adult stem cells are being used today to treat Parkinson's, leukemia, MS and many other diseases as well. We are all in support of that. I feel very strongly that researchers should focus their efforts on adult stem cell research. There is a potential abuse of that tiny embryo which is a child. Conception is the beginning of life.
Let us look at the bill, the new group and Motions Nos. 52 through to 77. The minister wants to undo a committee amendment requiring board members of assisted human reproduction agency to come under conflict of interest rules. The health committee is saying that board members should not have commercial interests in the field of assisted human reproduction or related research. That is absolutely correct. They should not. The board members may talk about fertility clinics and biotech companies, and the board should report. Imagine an employee or investor in a biotech company with financial interests in embryonic stem cell research making decisions for Canadians on the regulation of such research. There is no way that should be done.
We are here to protect the unborn, that embryonic cell. I have been so dismayed in the past few months when I have looked at what has been happening and the direction in which we have been going. I look at our people here and at other young people. When I see these tiny babies, I ask myself how could they take a cell and stop the birth of that child. There is no question that we are in a high tech world and that we need lots of research. However adult stem cell research today is the way to go. There will be no negative debate on that.
When medical science is as advanced as it is in our age, there are times when we have to debate between what we can do and what we should do. That is exactly what we are doing tonight. Science and technology have given us another point of debate in this age old discussion. What we are debating today, with the amendments and the countless motions made by the members of the House related to it, is designed to regulate human reproduction, stem cell research and cloning. There is no way we should be into cloning.
(1710)
I listened also to the state of the union address by the President of the United States. There is no way the states would allow cloning. Why would we in Canada? It was said that the legislation would put limits and offer safeguards against the kind of brutal science that some believe to be an acceptable means to an end. My immediate concern is that it allows embryonic stem cell research, the destruction of human fetuses, in the name of scientific research.
That is not Canada. That is not the kind of Canadian research we want. It is allowed, notwithstanding that adult stem cells have been found to have many of the same medicinal qualities that researchers are looking for with embryos. What if someone said that the stem cells taken from healthy little three year olds offered the greatest promise to finding a cure for cancer?
I trust and expect that there will be changes to the bill before we are asked to pass final judgment on it, but I want to be very clear tonight. I cannot, as a matter of conscience, support a bill that allows embryonic stem cell research. I have tried to make my position on this issue very clear. Would anyone realistically say that it is okay to take the lives of innocent three year olds in the name of medical science? If it is brutal and barbaric to take the life of a little three year old, why do we, as a society and as a government, not say that it is just as brutal and barbaric to end the life of a healthy fetus in the mother's womb?
I say this to my friends in the House. We have a problem with the whole way we look at things these days. I have seen it just in the past week. Human embryos are human beings and no one should be debating it in the House and saying that they are not. Life begins at conception and we all know that. Look at the young people who are here today. Would we have taken their lives away from them? No. As we look at their faces, there is no way we would do that.
I oppose the destruction of human embryos for any reason, including scientific research. We have to ensure that those who have a financial interest in embryonic stem cell research do not make decisions for Canadians on the regulations of such research, including the definition of the word necessary as specified in clause 40. Imagine a director of a fertility clinic making regulations on limits of sperm and egg donations or the number of embryos produced for IVF treatments. Conflicts of interest need to be prevented in this legislation. We have to ensure that.
Where is the minister to explain why this amendment is even being put forward? What has happened to us here? Why are we allowing all of our principles to be wiped away?
The amendment would require the health minister to table an annual report. We want an annual report that is transparent around the regulations of assisted human reproduction and related research and we would prefer that the agency itself produce such a report. We want an independent agency, not one directed by the health minister or anyone else. When talking about the life of a person, we have to have that independent agency come to us in the House of Commons.
I pray that all members in the House will not support this new group. We support the majority of the amendments that have been brought forth by the opposition members, but there is a need for every member on the government's side to be responsible and protect that embryo, that little child. There is a need for every member to stand and say that they will not allow embryonic stem cell research but that they will allow adult stem cell research. We will agree to that. However no way will we take the life of a child for research.
(1715)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-13 report stage motions in Group No. 4, I have four motions that I have sponsored and I would like to briefly comment on one. Members have done an excellent job with regard to my motion, Motion No. 55, which requires standardized forms for fertility clinics.
There are 24 fertility clinics in Canada. Some are publicly funded and associated with hospitals like the fertility centre at the Ottawa hospital. However a number of other private fertility clinics, which members should be aware, refused to appear before the Standing Committee on Health to explain how they operated their businesses, to show us their forms and tell us how things were going. As a consequence, there are fertility clinics out there which are not sharing how they do their business with Parliament or with the people of Canada.
I believe it is very important for us to require standardized reports for all fertility clinics so that when our reproduction agency makes decisions on applications for research and all other matters related to the use of materials from fertility clinics, its judgments will be based on informed consent information which is standard across the entire industry. I hope I can have the support of all hon. members on Motion No. 55.
Motion No. 61 is with regard to requiring that this agency be subject to the Official Languages Act. I want to thank the member for Ottawa--Vanier, who is the chairman of the official languages committee of Parliament and who spoke very eloquently on it. I also give full credit to the member for Saint-Lambert who seconded the motion, but in fact it was her motion. As a member of the committee she was unable to make the motion. I made the motion on her behalf and I am pleased to advise the House that the government has agreed to support it.
Motion No. 75 deals with the chairman of the agency and how many times that three year appointment can be renewed. Presently how many times someone can be reappointed to that position is a little uncertain. I checked with the chair of the public accounts committee to inquire as to the standard terms with regard to the Access to Information Commissioner and similar agencies or quasi-jurisdictional bodies. As of today, we have agreed that a period in total of six years would be most appropriate and most in line with other agencies. I have proposed Motion No. 75 to say that the term shall be three years plus the option of one additional reappointment. That would put it up to a maximum of six years.
Motion No. 77 calls for a dispute resolution mechanism to be established for the agency. I cannot tell the House how sensitive some of these matters will be when talking about donors of sperm and eggs, donors of embryos, in vitro fertilization processes, fertility clinics, researchers and commercial ventures. There are many parties associated with the utilization of human embryos and the extraction of stem cells and their utilization down the line. There will be problems. People will have disagreements. There will be interpretations of this act. I believe it is very important that we have a dispute resolution mechanism built into the act which is a prerequisite for licensing. That will insulate the agency from extensive court actions that would be very disruptive to the orderly process of their operations.
I would like to comment on Motion No. 71. The Minister of Health has decided that she would like to delete the clause in the committee stage motion to establish gender balance on the board of directors. I do not think there is anybody who will argue that the particular act of drugging women to the maximum to get them to hyperovulate, to harvest their eggs, to fertilize them, to make them go through all kinds of invasive procedures and social and economic pressures is a women's issue.
(1720)
There is no question in my mind that on this women's health and social issue that women must have at least 50% representation on the board of directors of this agency. I want to congratulate the member for Winnipeg North Centre who made that plea in committee and convinced the committee. We passed it on her behalf and I want her to know that we will support her 100% to ensure that the minister's motion to delete that clause will be defeated by the House.
Motion No. 72 from the same member, who worked very hard, says that conflict of interest in this matter is a serious issue. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the patentability of some of these technologies and the related technologies that would flow from this? There would be pecuniary interests to many people along the line, many of which we would not know.
The committee said that we do not want the board of directors of any agency filled with people who are totally immersed and involved and know everything about it. We want wise people. We want people with common sense. We want people who would be objective in their assessments. We want people who would make good decisions. We want people who have no direct or indirect conflict or interest or opportunity to have pecuniary interests as a result of any licence or research.
Motion No. 72, made by the Minister of Health, which would delete that excellent motion of the committee proposed by the member for Winnipeg North Centre is a very important motion. When we raised this issue an official told the committee that:
|
|
For the full-time members the code of conduct requires a very extensive disclosure of financial interests, which is normally not considered appropriate for part-time members of a board. |
He went on to say:
|
|
But the part-time members are governed by the principles of the code of conduct. I believe the logic behind the way code of conduct operates now is that the consequences of a conflict for a part-time member are not as significant as for a full-time president, who in this case is the CEO of the agency. |
Part time members of the board who have a full vote--their opportunity for conflict is less than someone who is a full time member. Nonsense, I say.
He added:
|
|
Requiring the very extensive disclosure of financial interests may act to discourage people from taking on part-time positions that have very limited remuneration. |
We have an agency of 13 people. I will find 13 people who are prepared to serve on a very important agency and who are prepared to take the time to declare their conflict of interest and ensure they do a good job.
Motion No. 72, on behalf of the minister, to delete the conflict of interest provisions must be defeated. I ask the House for its support to defeat Motion No. 72.
Motion No. 52, on behalf of the minister, amends the bill related to the provision of counselling services. We had enormous testimony to say that people who go through the in vitro fertilization process have tremendous pressures and consequences. They told us they did not know what was going on. They did not get the information. We had witnesses who told us that nobody told them about what was really going to happen.
The committee came up with an amendment to the bill which said that the agency shall ensure that people who go through the IVF process will get these counselling services. The minister wants to erase that and say that we would just make the services available. We put in “must ensure” for a reason and that is because it is absolutely necessary.
I therefore move:
|
|
That report stage Motion No. 52 be amended to add after the word “person” the words “and ensure that the person receives them”. |
(1730)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
I declare the amendment receivable. The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The recorded division on the amendment stands deferred.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
The next question is on Motion No. 53. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Louis Plamondon:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems quite clear to me that when you said “the nays have it”, no one rose in the House. Therefore, the motion is disposed of. The Standing Orders are very clear on this.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Order, please. In response to the objection by the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, when I put the question to the House, toward the end, at least five members rose halfway, to signal their intention. I accept that in fact they at least rose halfway.
(1735)
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 55. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Myron Thompson:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not new to this place, but I was always told that if a member wanted to cast a vote, whether it was a yea or a nay or a standing vote, that member needed to be in his or her seat to do so. I would suggest the justice minister sit in his own seat if he is going to be voting on this issue.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Even though the minister was not in his seat there were more than five members who stood up to ensure that there was a recorded division.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon:
Mr. Speaker, once again, on a point of order. I repeat the previous point. You said that you saw five people rise. I am convinced, if you were to look at the videotape, that the five persons who rose were not in their place. Therefore, the amendment should be disposed of.
(1740)
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I would appreciate some clarification on this. By normal practice on a voice vote the Chair has not insisted or required that people be in their seats when they yell out their votes nor when they stand to indicate their interest in a recorded division. If in fact there is to be a new practice, I would appreciate knowing it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Perhaps I should look for advice from the House. This is fairly new. The clerks cannot find it in the rule book. We just cannot find it at this point in time.
[Translation]
Is it agreed to proceed to the next motion?
An hon. member: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): As soon as we find something on this matter, we will get back to the House.
[English]
In the spirit of cooperation I would ask members from now on to be in their seats in order to voice their yea or nay.
The next question is on Motion No. 64. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Bélair): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 71. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare the motion carried.
(Motion No. 71 agreed to)
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We had a list provided to us by the Speaker yesterday which had the motions in order. According to my reckoning we have missed Motions Nos. 53 and 61. In this last vote I do not even know which motion we were on. Are we doing every second one? How is it being done?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
I was on Motion No. 71 to start with. I am told that in Group No. 4 this motion has been revised.
(1745)
Ms. Bonnie Brown:
Mr. Speaker, is this not the same chart we were given yesterday? What order are you doing it in? It would be helpful if you would call out the number.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
That was Motion No. 71.
Just to clarify, at this point in time we have dealt with the amendment to Motion No. 52--
An hon. member: No, not the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
I am told that we cannot do Motion No. 52 unless we deal with the amendment first. We have done Motions Nos. 53, 55, 61, 64 and we have just done--
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that we forgot Motion No. 61.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
The table tells me that we have done Motion No. 61. Let us check the blues.
Mr. Jason Kenney:
Mr. Speaker, I just want to follow on the point of order raised by my hon. friend from Oakville by pointing out that I and other members with whom I have consulted are not at all clear what the last motion was that was put to the House.
I submit that on that motion at least the vote ought to be retaken, given the confusion at the table and with the Chair.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:
Mr. Speaker, my point of order pertains to your understanding of Motion No. 71, which you indicated has been heard and voted on. First, there was confusion as to whether that motion had been put. Second, there were five members in the House who rose from all corners that you may not have seen. Therefore, I ask for a reconsideration of the placement of Motion No. 71.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
The only way that we can deal with this is to have unanimous consent to do Motion No. 71 all over again. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1750)
Ms. Marlene Catterall:
Mr. Speaker, before re-calling a vote I would request that you review the tape and the blues. You clearly read the number of the motion. You clearly read the motion. There was a vote on it and it was carried on division. I see no reason that we should retake a motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
I vividly recall that we did Motion No. 71 but now there is no unanimous consent.
Mr. Paul Szabo:
Mr. Speaker, I have received the list that you are reading for calling the motions. I also have the list that was provided to us when the Speaker identified the motions that would be dealt with at report stage. Looking at the new Group No. 4, they are both in the same order.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you check the blues you will find that you went through and missed Motions Nos. 53 and 61.
If I am following, and I cannot look at each of the motions, but I know by number which one I will vote yes, yes, yes, no, which is what the whip does as well. If you miss one you throw off our voting pattern.
Having said that, the final point is that the member for Oakville and myself were two of the five people who stood but, I hate to say it, it appears that when you said yeas supporting the government motion you looked for the five people over there. You did not look over here. I know there were at least four or five people down there plus the two here. This is an important gender equity motion that needs to be debated further and voted on.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Let us verify the blues. If there are any corrections to be brought about they will be.
Mr. Chuck Strahl:
Mr. Speaker, I guess I will have to wait to see where you are going with this. However when you rule that you are going to retake the vote on Motion No. 71 and then entertain further motions from members disputing that, then they are disputing the ruling of the Chair. The Chair has ruled that we will take the vote again, unless you are going to contradict yourself. You will get into real trouble if you start saying we are going to do something, ruling on it and then accepting disputes from wherever about revisiting it again. We need to have another vote because you have already ruled on it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
If I could have the attention of the hon. member for Fraser Valley. We will have to check the blues. Initially I thought I had unanimous consent to go back to Motion No. 71 but the chief government whip stood up five or ten seconds after the fact and just about cancelled everything that we had tried to do.
Some hon. members: Shame.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Yes, that is right. I do not care what you say.
Motion No. 72. Have you all heard it?
Mr. Rob Merrifield:
Mr. Speaker, there is a considerable amount of confusion here. I believe the last ruling was that you would go back and take a look at the blues and look at the confusion to see if you could clarify it.
The schedule we have is that this debate would go on until 5:53 p.m. We are now past that on the clock.
I would suggest to you that you do take the time to consider it and that we pick this up when we reconvene the debate. That would be my suggestion.
(1755)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Here is a new one for you. It being 5:53 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
[English]
Employment Insurance Act
The House resumed from December 12, 2002, consideration of the motion that Bill C-206, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (persons who leave employment to be care-givers to family members), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join the many speakers who have already dealt with the bill in its first hour of reading who were in strong and full support of this very worthwhile, honourable and noble idea brought to us by the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore.
I should start by saying that as long as I have known the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore he has raised the issue, going back five years, at our caucus and through the House. The hon. member has recognized the great need and great shortfall that exists within the current home health care system as it pertains to people who may need assistance to stay in their own homes. He has been a tireless champion of this issue. It must be very gratifying for him to sit here today and have this private member's bill votable, in its second hour of debate, and looking forward to seeing it through to its final, logical conclusion.
I should point out as well that the ruling party, the government of the day, has obviously seen the merits of the bill because, to its credit, it has taken the lead from the hon. member and in recent releases about the upcoming budget it has been alluded to, actually outlined, that the government will in fact introduce some measures, we are hoping, in the upcoming February budget that will address the issue of income maintenance for family members who need to take time off work to care for ailing relatives. I think that is worthy of note and worthy of applause but let us not forget where it comes from.
There is a saying “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.” I think we have a classic example today. I should mention that it was Margaret Mead who said that very worthwhile phrase.
The point of the bill, as I understand it, is that if a person has a family member, a loved one or a relative who is disabled or is suffering from an illness and needs to be housebound, that person can take leave from work and enjoy job protection. They will not risk their job by taking time off from work. They will be able to stay at home to care for an ailing relative and receive income maintenance from the employment insurance fund just as if he or she were unemployed or under the sick leave benefits of employment insurance.
The bill contemplates expanding the designated uses of the Employment Insurance Act. It would make an amendment necessary to list this as one of the categories or criteria under which a person would qualify for EI. However can there be any doubt, given the level of support that we have heard in the previous hour of debate in the House?
Can there be any doubt given the level of support that we are hearing from groups like the Canadian Association of Retired Persons which has a membership of two million or three million people who endorse the concept? Can there be any doubt when the Victorian Order of Nurses and the Canadian AIDS Society support this very idea? Many non-profit NGO groups have endorsed and proposed the very same measure as put forward by our friend, the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore.
It is such a reasonable thing, especially when we keep in mind, and I remind hon. members, that the employment insurance fund is showing a surplus of $750 million a month, not per year but per month, and $7 billion or $8 billion per year. What better use for that surplus than to provide true employment insurance for a person who needs to leave his or her place of work to care for an ailing loved one? I think it is entirely appropriate, logical and achievable because we know the money is there.
(1800)
Let us remind ourselves where the employment insurance fund, which is in such a wild surplus, comes from. It comes from the contributions of employers and employees. Not one penny of money going into the employment insurance fund comes from the government. In other words, this will be a self-directed insurance program, if and when the unfortunate circumstance arises where a person has to take care of an ailing loved one.
I can relate to it even more because of my own personal experience. My mother is in a situation like this now that she is 84 years old and is disabled. She has been released from hospital and will be needing home care. The home care system, because we do not have a national home care system, is under enormous stress. My provincial home care system cannot provide enough home care to take care of a woman like my mother who needs attention 24 hours a day.
Were I an ordinary working person living in my home city of Winnipeg, and were this program available to me, I would be able to take time off in the same way one would take maternity or paternity leave, for a 50 week period which I believe is the new maternity rule. I would be able to relieve some of the stress on the current home care system that frankly cannot provide enough care, and very appropriately use the resources from the employment insurance fund so that I could take time off work and care for my ailing relative.
As I mentioned earlier, a key and integral feature of the hon. member's very well thought out bill is that there would also be job security provisions provided. My employer could not dismiss, penalize or discipline me if I found myself in this unfortunate position. Any reasonable thinking person would agree it would be fundamentally wrong to punish an individual if they had to take time off from work.
The hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore says what a wonderful world it would be, what a better world it would be. I believe it is our job in the NDP caucus to raise that very issue. Think how much better Canada could be if we took some of these logical, achievable and very realistic steps to plug the holes and fill the gaps in our social safety net.
It is my great pleasure to add my name to the long list of Canadians, a network that the hon. member over the five years he has been advocating for this, has developed right across the country, people who are watching that debate tonight. It is my great pleasure to add my name to that very long list of Canadians who care about other Canadians and to push this bill forward to its next logical step. I anticipate hearing positive comments from members from other parties today. I defy anyone in the House to come up with any good reason that this should not become law in this country.
I speak on behalf of the constituents I represent in Winnipeg Centre, on behalf of the many families who find themselves in the situation in which I am right now with an elderly mother who needs home care, on behalf of the senior citizens from the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, and I believe the Congress of Union Retirees of Canada, CURC. Its 1.5 million members have also endorsed this very worthwhile and noble initiative. We would all be in good stead if we could rise, party after party and voice our strong support for a worthwhile and noble initiative like this one.
Canada could only be a better place. Show me the reason that we cannot do it. The money is in the pot. It is our money. It is not the federal government's money. We, speaking on behalf of Canadians, are saying that this money should be used for income maintenance for people when they need it and that EI money should not be used for anything else.
Let me use the minutes I have left to remind people that those dollars from employers and employees that go into the EI fund were put there to give employment insurance to people when they need employment insurance. It is not to be used for anything else. If we use employment insurance money for anything other than income maintenance, it is a breach of trust. In fact it is out and out fraud if we take money from a person's paycheque for a specific purpose and use it for something completely different. It is fundamentally wrong.
This use will be to provide employment insurance for people who need it because they have a sick family member to care for. It is appropriate. It is one of the contemplated designated uses of EI. It is the right thing to do. I urge strong support from all parties.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore for having launched this important debate on a matter that cannot help but interest large numbers of Canadians. It is, in fact, a matter of interest to the country as a whole, since it impacts upon the workplace, the health care system and society in general.
(1805)
Last year I had an experience that made me more aware of this situation, when I was involved in fundraising for Leucan. I came to know parents who had left their jobs to be with a sick child and was able to see the many difficulties and constraints parents have to deal with during this painful time.
I must acknowledge that the bill introduced by my hon. colleague addresses concerns that are shared by the Government of Canada.
Bill C-206 needs to be seen in relation to the commitment made by the Government of Canada in the last throne speech.
In the September 2002 Speech from the Throne, the government announced its intention to make changes to existing programs The government will also modify existing programs to ensure that Canadians can provide compassionate care for a gravely ill or dying child, parent or spouse without putting their jobs or incomes at risk.
These commitments show the government's concern with the difficulties being faced by many Canadians in balancing work and family.
There is no question about my colleague having his heart in the right place. He is concerned about the difficult situation being faced by nearly one in four Canadian workers. These workers or other family members are looking after a family member who is elderly, disabled or seriously ill.
My colleague's deep concern for these devoted people who are having to reconcile family responsibilities and work pressures is obvious. Theirs is a superhuman task.
It is also undeniable that the efforts required to establish this balance among all one's obligations, often incompatible obligations, is a heavy burden for many Canadians. We know that close to half of all Canadians experience average, if not high, occupational stress levels. That figure is close to twice what it was 10 years ago. We also know that women who have to reconcile work and family responsibilities are twice as likely to experience considerable stress.
This personal conflict does not only impact on individual health and well being, although this is enough of a concern in itself. Mental or physical health problems also have repercussions on the economy.
These repercussions are directly related to job satisfaction, to loss of interest in the organization and burnout, which can ultimately lead to someone leaving their job. Work-related absences represent approximately 20 million work days and $2.7 billion annually for Canadian businesses.
Taxpayers are affected too: health care spending is increasing. The cost to the Canadian health care system resulting from the difficulties of balancing work and family life has been estimated at over $425 million per year.
What concerns me is that the proportion of employees caring for both elderly parents and children has risen from 9.5% to 15% over the past decade. Given these demographic trends, the situation can only get worse. That is why the Romanow and Kirby reports recommend that the Government of Canada ensure income support and job security for caregivers.
What the member is trying to accomplish with Bill C-206 is an act of compassion worthy of praise. There is no doubt that we must look at this issue.
In the Speech from the Throne, the government recognized the vital importance of job protection and income support to workers whose family is in crisis because, for example, a loved one is seriously ill or dying.
I think that it is not acceptable to any of the members that 56% of Canadians dealing with these types of responsibilities must take time off work without pay.
That is why Human Resources Development Canada is developing policy options for a new leave for family reasons. Our first goal will be to effectively meet the needs of Canadian workers and their families.
(1810)
We made a commitment to change our existing programs to allow Canadians to provide care for their child, spouse or parent who is seriously ill or dying.
I would like to mention one concern I have regarding Bill C-206: the fact of having to choose between work and providing care for a family member.
On this point, I am very happy that the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore was open to amendments to his bill. This is something that could be done in standing committee.
According to the amendment proposed, people would have to leave their job or be laid off in order to receive employment insurance benefits.
I am sure that all members would agree that the last thing we want is for Canadians to have to choose between their job and being a caregiver for a family member who is seriously ill.
The new compassionate leave that our government is proposing would allow Canadians to miss work temporarily to provide care for a child, spouse or parent who is seriously ill or dying.
The benefits the government is considering providing would add to the support measures intended for families who need them the most. This would avoid having vulnerable families slip into poverty. This would also help Canadian companies keep their skilled employees, an issue of great importance for all employers at a time when the labour pool is diminishing and there are not enough qualified workers. Our compassionate approach to people's personal problems will contribute to a more productive economy.
Our initiative will also meet one of the key recommendations of the Romanow report and will help to achieve the targeted results in a federal jurisdiction.
I can assure the hon. members that we are consulting with provincial and territorial governments, employers and stakeholders in order to move forward with this initiative. We are confident that we will have their support.
According to a recent COMPAS survey, 60% of CEOs and senior managers of companies are in favour of the government providing temporary financial support to employees who have to stay away from work in order to take care of members of their immediate family who are seriously ill.
I should also point out that according to surveys, Canadian companies have adjusted well to the extended parental leave that we implemented a year ago to promote balance between family and work.
Of course we are well aware of the cost of such programs and we want to create a program suited to the most practical needs of Canadians.
We understand our colleague's generosity of spirit. We must turn good intentions into good results for Canadians who have to cope with serious family health problems. Our goal is to come up with an effective and economical initiative that will meet needs yet be flexible and practical.
Let us make no mistake. The Government of Canada fully recognizes the challenge faced by many Canadian workers. We are determined to give them the support they need to cope with this difficult situation.
I am certain that the new leave for family reasons that is being developed will take into account the hon. member's concerns. I hope I can count on his support.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-206. My colleague from Medicine Hat has already spoken to the bill. He is the critic for us in this area, but I also want to add my voice.
(1815)
Bill C-206 is an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act for persons who leave employment to be caregivers for family members. First I want to first congratulate the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore for bringing forward this issue. I believe that every member of the House appreciates the hardship and adversity families face when one of their relatives is diagnosed with a terminal illness. Such families are confronted with very hard choices over how to care for that relative while at the same time providing for themselves and other family members. Those who choose to care for their own relatives are very courageous and deserve support from the state. This was recognized by both Kirby and Romanow in their reports.
Members of the Canadian Alliance strongly believe that the family is the essential building block of society. We therefore find merit in the idea of government assistance to Canadians who choose to leave a paying job to care for a terminally ill family member at home. I must say that this is already done by many people. They may not be leaving a paying job, but this kind of care is done regularly across the country even at this time.
Certainly the proposed legislation would reduce the financial stress for people who find themselves in that situation. In addition, such a program could provide substantial savings for public health care budgets. However, the primary issue is a recognition that the social and emotional benefits of loved ones caring for each other far outweigh placing an individual in institutionalized care.
By tying such assistance to the employment insurance program, however, the bill flies in the face of a Canadian Alliance conviction that the EI system has gone astray from its original objective to be a safety net for laid off workers. When the program was designed, the premiums were supposed to match the payouts. However, since its inception all kinds of new features have been tacked on and the Auditor General has raised objections that the intent of the Employment Insurance Act is no longer respected, particularly in regard to premiums equalling benefits. We in this party believe that EI should be brought back to a true insurance program for job loss.
I understand the desire on the part of some members to attach this initiative to the employment insurance program. The overcharging of employers and employees for this program resulted in a $40 billion surplus at the end of the last fiscal year. This is $25 billion over what is required as a cushion by the chief actuary of Human Resources Development Canada, who says that $15 billion would be adequate to withstand any economic downturn.
Of course we as parliamentarians know that this is a surplus only on paper, because EI funds flow directly into general revenue. The $25 billion extra in surplus has already been spent, mainly to pay off the debt, according to Dale Orr of the economic forecasting firm Global Insight. Even if the EI surplus were just sitting there, the Canadian Alliance believes the solution is not to tack on more spending initiatives to the program. Rather, the federal government should stop overcharging employees and employers and substantially lower premiums to reflect the benefits paid out.
Funding compassionate leave through the EI system has other drawbacks. I think it is important to point them out, because this may be well intended but may not have been thought out by the people proposing the legislation. It arbitrarily screens out those who are ineligible for EI: the self-employed. I do not believe that Canadians would support the disqualification of farmers, small business owners, contractors, consultants and truckers from such a worthy social program. They would be left out in the cold. Also, as the trend in business is toward hiring workers as independent contractors rather than employees, the pool of the excluded would likely increase dramatically over time. The same situation applies to parental leave, frankly, which we in the Canadian Alliance believe should be a separate program and not part of the EI system.
In addition, due to the demographics of an aging population, there is a very real possibility that attaching compassionate leave to EI may in time overburden the system, requiring premium hikes down the road.
(1820)
In conclusion, I believe the intent behind Bill C-206 is on the mark and I applaud my colleague for his work on this issue. However, the fatal flaw of the legislation before the House today is that it uses the employment insurance system as its funding instrument. This initiative needs to be further studied and debated. In my view, the compassionate leave would be better financed through some joint provincial-federal agreement. I therefore cannot support the bill itself. I certainly believe in the intent, but the bill itself, in attaching it to EI, is not acceptable to the Canadian Alliance.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak in the debate on Bill C-206, which seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act to allow persons qualifying as caregivers to leave their job to care for a family member.
The member's objectives in introducing this bill are highly commendable. For quite some time, we have looked for a way to help caregivers help their family. We know that there is no better caregiver than a family member to help someone who is ill either regain their health or die with dignity.
We also know that a program for caregivers would take a huge load off the health care system, the CLSCs and the clinics providing home care and so forth. Therefore, the principle of the bill is a good one.
The definitions are set out in section 1. Caregivers, clearly, are persons leaving their job—it says who leave their employment voluntarily or whose employment is terminated—but who want to care for a family member who is ill or who has an impairment as defined in the Income Tax Act.
Next, the bill gives a definition of family. Again, I see no problem with the way family is defined.
But I do see a problem with the fact that families are getting smaller and smaller and, quite often, caregivers have no family ties with the person they are in a position to care for.
There are all sorts of reasons. Perhaps they are neighbours who have become friends, or they are co-workers, one of whom has no family and the other of whom is able to help.
Families are much smaller than they used to be. The bill refers to siblings, uncles, aunts and so on, but nowadays many families are having only one child. We also must consider the fact that family members are not always very close.
There used to be the family unit and everyone lived together. It was not uncommon to see only a handful of surnames in a village. Nowadays, young people often have to leave the region they were born in to look for work elsewhere and they end up very far away. Parents stay all alone. Thought should be given to a mechanism that would allow the concept to be expanded so that someone who is truly close to the person in difficulty could come to their assistance.
There is something else that should be considered. I personally would be very much in favour of this bill being passed by the majority of the members in the House so that we can send the bill back to committee, study it in depth and look at how it could be improved in order to fund this program.
(1825)
The hon. member from the Canadian Alliance said that it was a problem to take money from the EI fund. Certainly, if this leave were reserved only for people receiving EI benefits, there will be a problem. There are an increasing number of self-employed workers. They need to have access to the necessary funds to be able to become natural caregivers too.
Given that the EI fund has surpluses in the billions, maybe it would be good if the government could come up with a mechanism to transfer part of the EI surplus into a fund to run this program. It would be accessible to all Canadians who may have a certain type of need.
Sometimes a natural caregiver may incur expenses when leaving home to take care of someone else, even if they live close by. Perhaps there could be a way to help the natural caregiver even if he or she is not receiving employment insurance benefits.
The various aspects of this problem need to be looked at. We will most definitely have an increasingly aging population, and will need more help to take care of them. It seems to me important for a mechanism to be found that is adaptable enough to enable everyone to benefit from the program.
For example, we do not want to get into the same bind as with maternity benefits and special sick leave benefits, which are related to workers' accumulated leave, workers who have a job and can draw employment insurance. The program to be developed for natural caregivers must go far beyond that and be capable of encompassing all Canadians.
I am convinced that, if we all support this bill at second reading stage, if we refer it to a committee for consideration and for the necessary hearings to be held so that people can put in their two cents worth, we will really have done something worthwhile. The government will perhaps decide after all that to reverse its position and say to itself, “Now, to move ahead with this bill about caregivers, it strikes us as important to redraft it and produce one that reflects all the comments that have been made”. So, one day, we will truly be able to help out natural caregivers.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to say a few words today on Bill C-206, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.
We are told that the purpose of the bill is to allow a person who receives employment insurance to care for a family member with an impairment, or who loses a job because of the conflicting demands of the job in the workplace to get up to 52 weeks of employment insurance.
Many groups across the country, especially in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, would support this bill because it takes a great deal of pressure off the already ailing health care system. Also it gives us an opportunity to see something very rare in this country. It gives us the opportunity to see the provincial government get a break and probably the opportunity to upload onto the federal government for a change. That would be a very positive step indeed.
I was very disappointed to hear that the Alliance will not support this bill. This bill would help out families right across the nation. The Alliance tries to be known as a party of the family, but it has no intention of supporting the bill, which is shameful.
(1830)
I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, who initiated this bill. I wish I had done it instead of him but I do want to congratulate him for it because it is a very good move indeed.
In general, we can support this initiative as a party. I have always been in favour of laws and policies that respect and enhance the well-being of the family which is one of society's main building blocks.
The bill has some very good points. It restricts the role of caregiver to that of a close family member: a spouse, a common law partner, a child, a grandchild, a sibling. This is very positive. In other words, strangers need not apply. The bill covers family matters. It is not extended to the commercial home care enterprises. That is good because it protects the integrity of the bill itself.
The impairment involved must also meet the requirements of the Income Tax Act. If the government's definition is as strict as what it uses for the disability tax credit, we can be assured that we are not in any danger of having a major run on the EI account.
The caregiver has to have a major attachment to the workforce. In other words, someone who barely or rarely qualifies for EI benefits cannot use the caregiver provisions as a method of getting up to 52 weeks of employment insurance benefits.
The provision is not open-ended. A person cannot draw EI under this provision for more than 52 weeks in total in one or more periods over a two-year period. The bill makes provision for an extension of the 52-week period if a doctor certifies that the care provided is necessary for the health and safety of the person with the impairment or it has made it possible for the person with the impairment to avoid becoming an in patient in a hospital or a long term care facility.
Finally, the bill requires any wages earned during the caregiver period to be deducted from the weekly EI benefits.
This is a good bill. I am hopeful the government will see fit to support it. I understand the bill will go to committee. Who knows, maybe a few changes will be made at that juncture.
In view of the fact that the government has been thinking out loud of late as to the possibility of covering home care under medicare, this bill certainly is in line with that thinking. It has the additional benefit of the home care being given by a close family member, which is very important to the individual receiving the care.
I want to revert to a part of the bill that requires a doctor's certificate for an extension of benefits over and above the 52 weeks stipulated over the two year period. It is not made clear in the bill, and hopefully it will be when it gets to committee, that a doctor's certificate is not required initially for the individual to get home care. That is one little thing we will probably have to look at. Hopefully when it is in committee some adjustment will be made.
It is a very good bill and we have absolutely no hesitation in supporting it. The bill will provide compassionate home care for family members. It will save money in the health care system and it will not be a very serious burden on the EI account. Unless and until home care is covered under medicare, this is a very good first step.
(1835)
Ms. Judy Sgro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this issue today. I thank the hon. member for Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore for raising such an important issue as compassionate care. It is something many of us on both sides of the House are very interested in. I am pleased that members in the opposition party share the same values as our government and support the same issues that concern us.
The very idea that is raised in this bill was broached in the September 2002 Speech from the Throne. In it the government clearly stated its intentions to modify existing programs to ensure that Canadians are able to provide compassionate care for a gravely ill or dying child, parent or spouse without putting their income or jobs at risk.
While we applaud the member's open-hearted desire to extend benefits to cover care not only for immediately family but also for aunts and uncles, brothers, sisters, step relations and inlaws, we as the government must be fiscally responsible. We have to ask the question, has the hon. member tallied the potential costs of implementing the amendments proposed in Bill C-206? It is one thing to have one's heart on an issue but at the same time as one's heart is on an issue, one has to look at what the costs will be to the government and to taxpayers.
These costs would involve not only direct payments to caregivers but also the loss of the labour market of workers. In addition, employers would face added costs in seeking, hiring and training new employees.
Besides Bill C-206's wide scope of both duration of benefits and definition of eligibility, we also have to question the need for a person to quit or to be laid off in order to be eligible for benefits. Is this the way to go? I think it needs more work and more discussion.
Canadians want to work and they do not want to be faced with either of these decisions. It goes directly against the government's continuous efforts to support labour force attachment. In fact, the principle of encouraging Canadians to find and keep work was at the heart of the 1996 reform of the Employment Insurance Act. The working world is perilous enough without encouraging workers to leave it in the hope that when they are able to return, there will be a job waiting for them.
The government is compassionate. We recognize the stress caused by balancing home and work demands. We are constantly seeking ways to lighten this burden.
It was for this reason that we extended maternity and parental benefits from six months to a full year. The temporary support employment insurance provides insures against the risk of losing one's job completely as a result of a family situation.
As the Speech from the Throne indicated in September, we intend to put the same effort into finding solutions for persons caring for a gravely ill close relative as we put into finding appropriate solutions for workers caring for their new children.
It does mean that we must look at the broad spectrum of government programs. It means that we have to look at all of the issues facing Canadians, including family, work and health. It means recognizing that people's lives are not neatly compartmentalized and that the same person is a worker, a parent and very often a caregiver.
We know that nearly three-quarters of the population of Canada who provide care to frail seniors are also employed and that the proportion of employees caring for both elders and children has almost doubled in the last decade. Caregiving is an issue that confronts a large segment of the population. It is also an issue that crosses the boundaries of work, family and health.
Commissioner Romanow in his recent report stated that home care quite simply could not exist in Canada without the support of social networks and informal caregivers. He noted that as much as 85% to 90% of home care is provided by family and friends.
When workers are faced with this degree of home care responsibilities, conflicts between work and care are bound to rise. Both the Kirby and the Romanow reports have raised the issue of income support and job protection for family caregivers.
(1840)
I ask members to please note that these reports have linked both of those issues. They have not suggested, as Bill C-206 does, that choices should be made between work and caregiving. The government is examining just how to support people caught in this work/care dilemma.
We believe that an appropriate solution would be to design a measure that directly supports family caregivers. This measure would also permit Canadians to take a temporary absence from work to care for gravely ill immediate family members without fear of sudden income loss or job loss.
We welcome this opportunity to debate and explore solutions to the problems faced by employed caregivers. Bill C-206 gives us all the opportunity to enter into this debate and to look for the solutions needed to move it forward. We strongly believe that the federal government has an opportunity to lead by example in providing temporary income support and job security to working caregivers.
We are, of course, very conscious of the costs of such programs. The challenge parliamentarians have is to turn good intentions into good results for Canadians facing family health crises. The government's objective is to design a cost effective initiative that is responsive, flexible and practical.
In regard to the member who introduced Bill C-206, I think it speaks well of just what a caring individual he is. He has put the work into this private member's bill to put it on the floor and to move this debate along. Hopefully in the near future we will be able to have a program that meets the needs of Canadians and recognizes the challenges that many people are facing today.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from the opposite side for her comments about this important bill. I also want to mention a comment made to me by one of her colleagues as I entered the House. The member talked about a situation that he faced 10 years ago. A mother came to him and said that she had a son who was dying. She wanted to stay home with her son, but she was not able to collect unemployment insurance. The only alternative was for her son to go into the hospital. There he went, at a cost of $400 a day, and that is where he died.
When we think about that, it is so tragic at all levels, because in fact if she could have stayed home with her son the cost at that time would have been $50 a day, I think, to pay for unemployment insurance while she stayed at home and cared for her son as he left the world. It would have been the perfect thing to happen. Everybody would have won. The hospital would not have had to pay out that additional money and we all know in our hearts that if someone is dying they should be with their loved ones in a home situation. That is what the bill is all about. It would institute a system which is caring and which meets the needs of Canadian families.
I am very proud that I have a colleague here who has done the work on this. He has in fact put it together in a way such that I think we can all see its possibilities and how it could in fact work to benefit all of us through a system that is already in place, the unemployment insurance system, which is there to provide insurance for people when they need to take time off, for example, to be with their newborn, which is something that the government has very rightly instituted recently, and a very progressive program it is. This bill is another piece of that program. It is at the other end of the spectrum, when people are leaving the world. Why not institute it at that point in the human journey as well?
I wish to express my thanks for this important bill and for the comments we have heard throughout the evening. The bill has had a very welcoming reception and I look forward to it going further, with more debate.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak to the bill from my colleague from Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, and I echo the compliments that have been given to him about his social conscience.
(1845)
Tonight we are debating private member's Bill C-206 concerning EI benefits for persons who are caregivers for family members. There is no doubt that the issue of compassionate care and the need to find a way to provide support and job protection for workers who have to take time off to care for very ill or infirm family members is a key one for the House to consider. We know that everyone has a stake in workplace issues: employees and unions, employers and governments, and social commentators, for example. Virtually all have identified the need for some kind of compassionate leave program for Canadians who have to be away from work to provide needed care for family members.
We have a lot of evidence to look at. For example, almost one in four Canadian workers say that they or others in their households provide care to an elderly, disabled or seriously ill family member. We also know that almost half of Canadians feel moderate to high work/life stress. This is almost double the rate of a decade ago. We know that women are more than twice as likely to feel the stress of trying to blend work and personal responsibilities. Workers with dependant care responsibilities, such as children or elderly relatives, report even more conflicts between work and life than their fellow employees. The member raises an issue that is of great concern to Canadians and that is already high on the government's priority list.
There are numerous ways to look at this issue. To some it is an issue of work and life balance. To others it is an issue of workers' rights. More recently it was identified as a health care issue. For example, both Romanow and Kirby looked at it in the context of the health care system. Mr. Romanow told us that as much as 85% to 90% of home care is provided by family and friends. His report concludes that home care could not exist in Canada without the support of social networks and informal caregivers. Senator Kirby too recognized the fundamental role played by family caregivers in home care. His report specifically recommends that benefits be provided to employed Canadians who choose to take leave from work to provide palliative care.
The government appreciates the views presented in these reports and accepts that attention to the issue of support for family caregivers is an important element of the overall health care agenda, but we also see this as a key workplace issue, especially in the context of looming skill shortages in many Canadian workplaces.
We have some facts that illustrate the extent of this issue in Canadian workplaces. First, we know that 56% of family caregivers also work full time and another 12% work part time. We also know the following: 69% of women with children under 16 are part of the employed labour force; 75% of males and 62% of females who provide care to seniors are employed; and the proportion of employees caring for both elders and children is going up dramatically, in the past decade increasing by 9.5%, to 15%. One survey showed that 77% of Canadian workers who care for gravely ill family members have had to take some time off to provide compassionate care.
The need to balance caregiving and workplace responsibilities is one that has impacts on many individual Canadian workers and their workplaces and, given the demographics of our population, it seems safe to assume that the extent of the impact on individual workplaces will continue to grow.
The issue of being able to provide compassionate care and still stay attached to the workforce is one that has important implications for the labour market of this country. Our objective must be to make sure that the valuable skills and experience of employees continue to be available to the labour market. At the same time, we should try to support their need to meet vital caregiving responsibilities.
(1850)
In other words, the government's response to this issue should meet workers' needs for temporary income support while they are away from work but at the same time should allow them to stay attached to the labour market. Governments are not alone in seeing this need. Employers too are recognizing the growing need to provide temporary leave to meet family responsibilities. For example, a survey of medium sized to large businesses showed that 59% offered some kind of family responsibility leave, although only about half had a formal policy. The survey also showed that typical employer workplace supports are largely unpaid, informal and very short term. In other words, there is growing recognition of the need for temporary workplace support for caregivers but not yet a systematic approach.
As we look at the issue from the perspective of the government, some key considerations emerge. First, although representatives of both employers and employees acknowledge the need for some kind of program to allow workers to balance their work and family responsibilities, no systematic response to the problem appears to be forthcoming from the private sector. Second, the typical need is for a temporary form of income support which will ensure that workers can retain their attachment to the labour force. Third, any solution must be affordable. Fourth, a program response from the federal government should involve both the public and the private sectors.
These are the key considerations that are guiding the government as an appropriate response is developed to meet the throne speech commitment to deal with this issue. I once again compliment the member for his work in the social field in raising this important subject for us to deal with in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
I must inform the hon. member for London West that there are four minutes before we call the hour for private members' business.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will take four minutes now although that does not give me enough time to say what I would like to say about the bill.
I am very pleased that we are having this debate. I believe in compassionate care. I believe that with an aging population our country will have a need for it. Our demographics show us that by 2011 our population over 65 will have increased by 23%.
Who will be giving care? Typically it will be women. Who are these women? They are working in homes right now. We have changed over time.
An hon. member: Right on.
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Yes, and I have my financial hat on too. With my financial hat on, I must say to my hon. colleague that as it is written now, the bill would be very expensive. It would be coming out of a fund. However, I am saying that there is a need and I think that we can work toward this as a goal. I would like to see that coming very soon, but I am not in agreement with the way my friend's bill is currently written. However, I can assure the hon. member who sponsored the bill that as for the cause we can reach agreement over time with consultation.
Right now in Canada there is a void. What comes under the labour code? Only a couple of provinces are taking part. I have done some research. Apparently only six provinces in this country provide a short term period of unpaid leave when someone has extreme family responsibilities and/or emergencies and must provide for relatives. One of the problems I have with my friend's bill is that the definition of “relative” is pretty broad, but again, these are details and we can work on details.
The numbers of unpaid leave days under labour code protection right now are: three in New Brunswick; five in British Columbia; five, apparently soon to be doubled to ten, in Quebec; seven in Newfoundland and Labrador; ten in Ontario and twelve in Saskatchewan. If a person's mother or father has cancer, that leave will just not fix things.
One of the other areas I am concerned with is women working outside the home and the additional stress there will be if they have to quit a job. I am looking at something that still has a labour attachment, not a voluntary quitting. I think we add and stockpile stress in a home situation if we have to quit a job. We do not need that. Again, I think there are ways to work this out. All of us here can do things that are realistic, that can meet real needs inside families and that do not deprive workforces of highly skilled and trained individuals, including those men and women who must do caregiving in their homes. In fact, 81% of Canadians feel somewhat the same about this. When approached on this issue, they say that there should be a role for the federal government in this.
Now it is a temporary replacement, and I will be the devil's advocate here. I will argue that if I am the sick person, I am not entitled to the 52 weeks that this bill provides for the caregiver, with potential extensions, but quite substantially less than that. This is another issue that we will have to grapple with.
I am glad to have had the opportunity to participate today. I will be involved as this bill, or an alternate bill of the government, moves along. I suggest that we all work toward getting the issue resolved.
(1855)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
The member still has six minutes left if she wants to use them.