Motion No. 34 may not be submitted to the House because it does not have the recommendation of the Governor General. Standing Order 76(3) requires that notice of such a recommendation be given at the latest on the sitting day preceding report stage.
[English]
Other motions will be grouped for debate as follows. GroupNo. 2, Motions Nos. 1 to 4, 9, 10, 14 to 19, 26, 27, and 28.
[Translation]
Group No. 3: Motions No. 5, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 25.
[English]
Group No. 4, Motion No. 6.
[Translation]
Group No. 5: Motions No. 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13.
[English]
Group No. 6, Motions Nos. 24, 29 to 33, 35 and 36.
Group No. 7, Motion No 37.
The voting patterns for the motions within in each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.
[Translation]
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-63, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 1 with the following:
``surname, given names, sex, date of birth, civic address''[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-63, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 1 with the following:
``surname, given names, civic address''[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-63, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 2 with the following:
``given names, sex, date of birth, civic address and mailing''[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-63, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 2 with the following:
``given names, civic address and mailing''[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-63, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 8 with the following:
``name, given names, sex, and date of birth and indicating the''[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-63, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 8 with the following:
``name, given names and date of birth if the''
(1010 )
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 12 with the following:
``updating the surname, given names,''Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be a disposition of the House to deem all the motions to have been read and seconded so that we might get on to the business of the day.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 13 with the following:
``list contains the surname, given names, sex, date of birth,''[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 13 with the following:
``list contains the surname, given names,''
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 13 with the following:
``his or her surname, given names,''[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 13 with the following:
``information, but, with the exception of the date of birth, the person is not required to''[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-63, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 23 with the following:
``tor, surname, given names, civic ad''
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-63, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing line 42 on page 36 with the following:
``tor's surname, given names, and date of''
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-63, in Clause 78, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 37 with the following:
``the surname, given names and rank;''
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-63, in Clause 79, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 37 with the following:
``elector, the surname, given names and''[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In the Order Paper and Notice Paper for yesterday, Thursday, November 21, on page X in Roman numerals, Motion No. 22 appears to have been proposed by me, according to the English version, while in the French it appears to have been proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas. I am therefore rising to make the correction, if it has not already been done. I believe that I moved the motion, but my colleague for Stormont-Dundas could confirm this with the Chair.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse. There was indeed an error in yesterday's Order Paper and Notice Paper, which has been corrected in today's Order Paper.
If all of my colleagues could follow today's Order Paper, we would avoid problems such as the one the hon. member for Bellechasse has just raised.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for a copy of today's Order Paper; it will take just a few seconds. I trust you will not take this time off my speaking time. In fact, the pages were so fast it would not even be worth the bother.
(1015)
First of all, the debate must go far beyond taking the amendments one at a time. I will be able to do that when I speak on third reading. The official opposition's extreme reticence about the bill before us today at report stage is, of course, partly because the finished product is imperfect and needs reworking. As some poet said-was it Boileau, my hon. colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve?-``Hone your work carefully; spare no effort and remember that that which can be said in fewer words is often better''.
This bill was not honed carefully. It bears all the marks of having been thrown together any which way. In the parliamentary committee, we saw the divergence between the points of view of the government which tabled the bill and those of Elections Canada. In fact, it is a hybrid, like the offspring of a porcupine and a snake we used to joke about as school kids, saying that the result would be about three feet of barbed wire. That is what the bill is like.
Regardless of what has been said, the opposition was not involved in drafting this bill. The very nature of the bill, modifying the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act, ought to have
automatically meant that the opposition parties, all of the opposition parties represented in this House, would be closely involved in drafting the bill along with Elections Canada, so that the resulting bill would be non-partisan.
It is quite possible that in the end we may not reach a unanimous decision since we are here to discuss ideas, and to discuss them on the basis of very clear premises. However, that has not been the case.
The first false premise was that this bill would supposedly establish a permanent voters' list for the next election. That is absolutely untrue. That is merely the impression that was given, and that some people repeated.
As far as the next election is concerned, the bill will only allow for an enumeration outside the electoral period, which means the election campaign will be abbreviated, but there will be no permanent list of electors. There will be an enumeration and a revision of the list of electors, but for all practical purposes, the current Canada Elections Act will apply to the rest of the election. I will explain the difference in greater detail at third reading. So basically, the process is flawed.
I trust that in a case like this, if both opposition parties vote against the bill at all stages, the government will not take a bill on electoral matters that was adopted only by the government majority in this House and submit it to the Senate for approval and Royal Assent. This would create a dangerous precedent that is intolerable in a free and democratic society, where a debate on such matters should be as open as possible. I will get back to this.
We are told that passing Bill C-63 will save money. We will not save any money by passing Bill C-63, since the amount of money required to conduct an enumeration before the electoral period, a special enumeration held over a period of three weeks, will considerably exceed any savings resulting from the fact that the election campaign will be shorter by exactly 11 days.
Basically, our position is this: let us have one more election according to the old rules we all know. Reform members, Liberals and Bloc members are all familiar with this act. We went through one election with this legislation, the Reform Party as well, and the Liberals have had several. We are on familiar ground here.
Electoral legislation is like the Criminal Code and the Civil Code in Quebec. These are the pillars that carry the whole system, and we cannot change them on a whim, just because someone has a bright idea and feels it should be implemented right away. This bill was introduced in early October, and a month later, the same bill, after being fast-tracked through committee, is back in the House at the report stage.
In these matters, speed is not the best policy. It is much better to take your time. We did not have enough time, but we are nevertheless proposing amendments that could help improve the bill.
(1020)
It is like an automobile muffler: for a certain time, you can always weld it so that it will not be too noisy, but sooner or later, it will fall off. What is proposed here is like welding a rusted muffler, which is what this bill is. Is it or is it not going to hold? At least if those amendments are passed, we will get rid of the noise for another two weeks and be able to travel from Ottawa to Cornwall once or twice, at most. Incidently, I lost my own muffler on my way to that same town two weeks ago, and I had another problem with that.
We will nevertheless try to make one last repair to this bill but basically I would like it to be put aside and I wish that those who will have the opportunity to examine it a second time will also take into account the haste with which it was considered the first time round.
There is also the undeniable fact that this government is in the last year of its normal mandate. Now traditionally, during the last year of a mandate, basic rules are not changed, in particular as regards the Elections Act.
It is somewhat like the hockey finals. I will give an example using two American teams to avoid controversy in this Chamber. The New York Rangers and the Boston Bruins have made it to the finals. The Bruins are leading three games to nothing. The Rangers have money as we know. They are in New York. They have Madison Square Gardens, which they fill each time. The Fox network televises their games. They have a lot of money. They survey the members of the board of governors and manage to get the board of governors of the National Hockey League to say: ``It is no longer four out of seven; it is now five out of nine. We have another chance to catch up''. The rules are changed at the end of the game.
The game is already underway. The government is already on the campaign trail. The Prime Minister rated his accomplishments at 78 per cent. He is clearly heading into an election trying to sell his 78 per cent rating. We will slip a decimal between the two figures during the election campaign, in fact, well before.
The game is underway; the finals have begun. Let us play the game with the old rules and not change anything. As the official opposition-and the Reform Party will speak for itself, it does not seem to have been consulted any more than we were-had no hand in writing Bill C-63 and did not give its approval, it is hard to agree, to hand over a blank cheque.
The smallest provision will blow up in our face at some point. They will say: ``You voted for that; you have to live with the law as it was passed. You supported it''. I by far prefer the process followed-and I will come back to it later-in the formulation of Bill C-69 on electoral boundaries in the first session of the 35th Parliament, where the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs took a year to prepare the bill.
The official opposition and Reformers did not support the bill, but at least we knew it word by word, comma by comma. The punctuation was checked over and over to make sure it changed nothing. Representatives of Elections Canada attended the meetings. The discussions were very broad.
This is not the case here. The government and Elections Canada are obviously very much at odds. We clearly have before us a partisan bill on electoral matters, where even Elections Canada officials disagree with several of the provisions of the Elections Act.
Because I have taken a few minutes to situate the debate my colleague for Laval Centre and chief whip of the Bloc Quebecois will speak shortly on motions of Group No. 2, which aims to include age as one of the essential factors in an electoral list.
To the extent that we want a permanent register of electors, not for the upcoming election but for the one after that, the date of birth must be included. Bill C-63 proposes that it be optional. However, the more complete the information, the more valid the register is. The information the state has on its own citizens comes from registers going back to their birth, as the provinces require that births be registered.
(1025)
In French law, this obligation has existed for over 400 years. These rights were recognized very early. The government must know who makes up the nation and which citizens enjoy certain rights. It cannot be optional. Some members spoke about this earlier. My colleague from Laval Centre will, of course, address this issue in more detail.
If Motions Nos. 1, 3, 9, 15 and 18 are adopted, I would agree to support the motion proposed by my colleague from Calgary West to omit gender. If the date of birth is included, the information regarding gender is no longer necessary.
The age and the date of birth would allow us to distinguish between people with neutral first names such as Claude, Carol or Maxime. Those are the comments I wanted to make.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to the report stage amendments on Bill C-63. In doing so I would first like to summarize our position as a party on this bill because we are not having a full second reading debate, having sent the bill to committee before second reading.
Under this new process we only have a brief debate and then we come back here with a debate which combines second reading and report stage. At third reading I will have a chance to fully elaborate upon our position. I would like to comment on this process. I share many of the concerns of the hon. member for Bellechasse. I also am concerned about this process.
This process does not really allow us to fully debate legislation. We have used this new process of sending bills to committee before second reading several times. I am not sure that the opposition parties generally have found it to be satisfactory. Many of my colleagues have mentioned this to me. As a result of this new process, we never really have a full debate in principle on legislation.
In this case the bill had only a cursory debate and then was sent to committee. The purpose of sending a bill to committee before second reading is to examine a broad range of issues which are not necessarily related to the principle or contents of the bill. After all, prior to second reading the bill has not received approval in principle. That is supposed to be the concept. Of course it depends on the chairman's style, but my observation has been that we very much conduct those committees the same as we would if they were held after second reading. In other words we tend to restrict debate to the items raised in the bill.
I know for example with respect to this particular piece of legislation, some of my colleagues raised issues which were not included in the legislation. The hon. member for Bellechasse raised the issues of third party advertising and of some regulations of Quebec's electoral law. Our party raised the concept of fixed election dates. We also raised the whole concept of how this elections bill would apply to byelections.
In all cases, while we had a brief discussion, the committee basically said that these things were outside the scope and the principle of the legislation. Of course they were. The legislation had not received approval in principle. Nevertheless, we worked on the assumption that it had. That was constantly the attitude of the government.
Certainly there were things which went well beyond the subject matter, but most of the things raised were clearly within the subject matter. In the case of byelections, while not directly related to the amendments in the bill, they are actually affected by the subject matter of the legislation. These things should have been debated more thoroughly than is allowed under this process.
Another example is that we wanted to debate at some length the rationale for a 36 day campaign as opposed to 37 or 39 days. We had only the briefest of discussions on that issue and once again the attitude was that this was not the principle of the bill and we were proceeding as if the bill had been approved in principle.
(1030)
I think that the process of sending bills to committees early in many cases simply allows the government to accelerate the timetable of debate rather than giving the bill a more thorough examination. That was the opposite of the intention.
I would make just a brief comment on our overall position on Bill C-63. We are going to oppose the legislation. I must be frank in saying that we are disappointed that we feel we have to do so. There are three major initiatives in the bill: the reduction of the electoral period, the creation of a permanent register and the initiative to stagger voting hours. All of these have some degree of merit, particularly the permanent register, which not only has merit but is critical.
We were unable to come to any kind of inter-party agreement on these. I think we could have if we had not been operating on an accelerated timetable. Many of the things that were discussed would have resulted in improved legislation.
I cannot speak for other parties, but on behalf of the Reform Party I can say that with a few changes we could have supported this legislation. The changes are not minor but they do not affect the principle of the legislation either. That troubles me a great deal. Maybe we will have some time to speak a little later in the debate about the process. I see my time is winding down. I would like to address the report stage amendments in the second group.
Group No. 2 includes 15 amendments, 5 moved by the Bloc Quebecois and 10 moved by the Reform Party. The five from the Bloc Quebecois concern making the date of birth a mandatory piece of information for inclusion on the register and the motions by the Reform Party remove gender as required information for the register.
I must say in all honesty that there is a bit of a technical problem with both of these being grouped together in that one does preclude the other the way they are drafted. I do not think that was the intention of either party because both the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party share the same position on these issues, which is that there is no necessity to include gender but there are reasons for including date of birth.
I will have time to address this very general issue later in the debate. What should guide us in constructing data registers is whether information is necessary for the purpose at hand or at least relevant. The primary consideration in constructing these databases should be whether it is necessary and relevant from the perspective of the citizen rather than some other group that may have an interest in the information.
It is quite obvious that the information on electoral lists should be relevant to a person's ability to be eligible to cast a vote. For a very long time in Canada gender has not been relevant in terms of whether or not somebody can vote in this country. On the other hand, clearly date of birth is relevant because a voter has to be at least 18 years of age. Why then are we including the one and not including the other?
If we examine the transcripts of committee meetings and comments from various members and if members had heard some of the comments that were made in camera, it becomes apparent that the guiding factor was not the needs of the electoral list or the needs of the voter. They were the perceived needs of political parties and of politicians. It was expressed over and over again that MPs found it convenient. Parties found it useful to know the gender of a voter. In some cultures, in French, and even some names in English, there are times when there is confusion, based on the first name, about whether a person is male or female. Certainly in some of the newer ethnic communities in the country names may not be obviously male or female. Because of our unfamiliarity with the names, as anglophones or francophones we do not readily know whether these persons are male or female. It makes identification harder. It can occasionally lead to an awkward situation. However, it is both a trivial and unnecessary reason for including gender.
(1035)
We have had concerns raised by females living alone that electoral lists expose the fact that they are females living alone and that these lists do circulate. We all know that electoral lists can only circulate under very restricted conditions for very restricted use. The fact is that they circulate widely during elections and probably most extra circulation of lists is rarely heard about or prosecuted. This does become a piece of information conveying the gender on the voter's list. It is unnecessary and it should not be there. In the province of Alberta, for example, it is not done and this is the case in other provinces.
That is something we think should be changed. I am surprised government members were not more sensitive about the needs of women when designing this legislation. I hope they will support these amendments.
I think they have more serious and perhaps even more dubious motives for refusing to include date of birth but I will let them speak for their own position on these matters.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since Group No. 2 mentions the date of birth, I feel quite comfortable saying that I went to school a very long time ago. When I was in school, I learned one thing, that is to make a preamble which was different from, although linked to the content. I am sure I will be allowed to make a brief preamble.
I was able to follow closely the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, to hear the Chief
Electoral Officer of Canada, Mr. Kingsley, and the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr. Wilson. I listened very carefully, as I always do.
I almost swallowed my birth certificate when I saw how fast the clause by clause study of the bill went. I really had a feeling of being in a classroom where a very bright mathematics professor was lining up digits across the blackboard, leaving no time for students to think or breathe.
I could barely believe that man was our chairman. It went so fast that there was time left on the clock. This is extraordinary. I think the House will understand that we are determined to make up for lost time in the House because, in the end, it may be the best forum to hold the debate.
Basically the second group of motions deals with two elements, namely age-is it useful, necessary, indispensable or just nice-and sex. I am going to talk mainly about the date of birth, and then briefly about sex.
It seems to me that we all come into this world one day and that we all eventually die. It is recorded somewhere. If we apply for a driver's licence when we are not yet 18, our parents must sign on our behalf. Once we turn 18, our date of birth appears on everything. My date of birth appears on my passport, if I am not mistaken, so does the colour of my eyes, and I do not feel offended by it.
But when it comes to the electoral process, why do we in the Bloc Quebecois, and everyone in Quebec, believe it is important? For several reasons. First, on election day, it is a means to make a proper identification. My name is not very common. I will not mention it since I am not allowed to, but everyone here knows what it is. Suppose, however, that there are two other persons with the same name as mine, one born in 1953, the other, like me, in 1938. If the date of birth does not appear, I might be able to pass myself off as someone much younger.
(1040)
This is one reason. I believe that this is one more way to clearly identify the voter at the polling station, because the one thing we fear more than anything else on election day is an imposter. This is the first reason.
There is another one which I find very important. The democratic process is said to be the most important thing in our society. During an election campaign several things are at stake. Of course, what is at stake is not of equal concern to the various groups in our society. In the case of measures specifically targeting the younger age groups, for example, the parties will have to know where they are to be found in order to give them some up to date information about what concerns them. This is the second reason why I think the date of birth should be mandatory and recorded.
For example, as far as old age pensions are concerned, I can assure you I would like the different parties to keep me informed of whatever changes are being proposed in the Liberal Party platform, for example. I would be very annoyed if my date of birth were not recorded.
I heard interesting arguments against that measure. The first one was that in Canada voting is optional and we are not forced to vote. It is true we are free to vote or not, just as we are not required to have a driving licence. However, if I do want to vote, my name must necessarily be on the electoral list. Otherwise, if it were not necessary, how could we justify the millions that are spent on compiling a list?
So, if I accept to be recorded on an electoral list, I am sending the message that as an elector in my country I intend to act as a good citizen and vote. In that context, I think it has nothing to do with freedom. Not indicating the date of birth would facilitate what we could call electoral fraud. You know, there are elections where the results are a close call. Imagine for example that in Laval Centre the candidates are neck and neck. It is possible, I am not saying it is probable, but it is possible. There are about 200 polling divisions and the difference in such a situation could be 2,000, 200, or even just 10 votes. Very clearly, with 200 polling divisions, one illegal vote per polling division makes the difference between victory and defeat.
So, I believe that, in all good conscience, the House should find another way to ensure that the voter who is in front of the deputy returning officer is really the person he or she claims to be.
I will now talk to you about sex. I am a little old to talk about sex, but I will tell you a little about it anyways.
Some hon. members: There is no age for that.
Some hon. members: No names, please.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: No, I will not name names. You can rest easy about that.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you one thing; no one in this House doubts that I am a woman: my name is Madeleine. So, I think that, if we do not indicate the sex, we should also remove first names and only keep the ones that are both masculine and feminine. In my opinion, an offender who would feel like doing some harassment would have plenty of ways to do so. And, to my knowledge, a voting list on which the sex would be indicated could not be used mainly to get involved in activities that would certainly not be right, but, as we say in the Lac-Saint-Jean region: as long as there are men, there are men's attitudes and, as long as there are women, there are women's attitudes. There may be offenders on both sides.
All this to tell you that I encourage the members of the House to pass the motions moved by the Bloc relating to age. They would show a greatness I know they are capable of.
(1045)
They say the purpose of committees is to improve bills. This legislation has many flaws, including the fact that so little time was provided for its consideration. But, if the majority members wanted to earn brownie points, they could perhaps recognize that Canada should include the date of birth on electoral lists, as Quebec already does. I hope the Human Rights Commission will not fault me for saying that, in this context, it is not really a question of discrimination on the grounds of age.
I am counting on my colleagues across the way to support me so that, for once in this Parliament, all members unanimously agree on something important.
I only have one minute left and I will use it to make a wish. I think there are many bills considered important by the government. So I will go as far as imploring members opposite, why not?
Mr. Bergeron: No, haggle.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: No, I will not. I am not like that.
So I implore the government to take the time needed to determine the reasonable period that should be allowed all parliamentarians, including government members, to really examine in depth bills which have an impact on the lives of all Canadians, of all Quebecers.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: There are two members rising. Normally we wait until all the people moving the motions have given their reasons and then someone from the government side gives their reasons why they can or cannot accept the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-63, whose title, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, tells us parliamentarians about its importance.
You will understand that I cannot discuss the amendments proposed by my party without first congratulating and thanking the hon. member for Bellechasse, for his excellent work regarding this measure.
I am convinced that you share my conviction, as does I am sure the President of the Treasury Board, that this Parliament would be a better institution if it had more members like my colleague for Bellechasse, who believes in the value of words and is well aware that, in a democracy, the best way to oppose an idea is to come up with a better one.
This is why the hon. member for Bellechasse reminded us of certain things. I was told that the President of the Treasury Board received a classical education. We will get back to this, since it has a direct connection with the bill and the motions. You will agree with me that, when we discuss issues relating to electoral democracy, haste is often the enemy of common sense.
It is truly sad that, on an issue such as this one, which deals with the quality of representation, of democracy and of our debates, the government did not ask opposition parties to get much more involved.
We are all mature enough, regardless of the party to which we belong, to know that, when it comes to such issues, it is preferable to seek a consensus. The hon. member for Bellechasse and the President of the Treasury Board are both cultivated individuals. The hon. member for Bellechasse quoted Boileau and reminded us that we had to keep working to improve the bill.
To illustrate the importance of the motions, I too wish to quote Boileau and dedicate the following proverb to the President of the Treasury Board: ``There are those whose dull minds forever languish under a cloud, blind to the light of reason. What is well understood can be clearly expressed; the words just flow naturally''.
The reason I am quoting Boileau, an author oft quoted in the classical colleges attended by the President of the Treasury Board, who is now in his fifties, is because it is important-
(1050)
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague in the debate.
Mr. Speaker, in recognizing my colleague you referred to a standing order. Perhaps you could suggest to us what standing order it is that you feel would make it inappropriate for us to speak. I believe that my colleague the chief opposition whip spoke and then my colleague from Calgary also spoke. I thought it would be appropriate in terms of the normal rules to allow the government to speak at least at that point.
I am respectful of the Chair and I would appreciate it if you would point out to us the standing order to which you were referring.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in the clarification you will bring into that matter, could you, by the same token, explain to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal why a substantial motion cannot be moved on a point of order?
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I will explain it as I attempted to do before.
It seems logical, to me at least as the Chair, to have all the people proposing motions to rise and say why they favour their motions. At the end of that process, whether there is one, two, three or four, it really does not matter, then a government member would rise to
say why they either agree with or, more likely, oppose an amendment. That makes some sense, rather than going back and forth across the aisle as we normally do in debate.
I think I discussed this earlier with members on the government side.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I believe that I was involved in some of those discussions.
Keeping in mind what the Chair has put forward, in terms of members who have brought motions forward, in this case in Group No. 2 they would stand in the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse and in the name of the hon. member for Calgary West.
I would add that the member for Laval Centre, who at this time and in this particular group has no motions standing in her name, participated in the debate. I believe, with every entitlement, that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal should be given the opportunity to speak. I think that any government member should be given the opportunity by that criteria.
I understand that the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, who is speaking now of course, does not have a motion in this group. I submit that possibly a large number of members on that side may want to speak and the government will not be silent on this important piece of legislation.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has no desire to prevent anyone from taking the floor. I think it is more logical to hear people in favour of the motion for 10 minutes. At the end of that period, members on the government side will be able to reply and even if 100 of them wish to speak, they will be allowed to do so.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would find, with the greatest of respect for yourself and the Chair, that sometimes things might be deemed to be practical and logical and that above all, the rules of the House must prevail which entitle members on either side to participate in the debate whenever they so choose and get the attention of the Chair, the eye of the Speaker.
While certainly I would understand fully that the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve would complete his remarks, I would hope that during the remainder of the debate we would be given the opportunity to participate fully.
(1055)
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I will respect whatever decision you will take. But some members on this side of the House have taken positions. I see the hon. members for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Parry Sound-Muskoka and Scarborough-Rouge River and I do not know what they think.
Preventing alternation would be presuming that all the members on the government side will oppose our motions; it would also hamper the exchange of views that makes the debate progress and that builds the debate as we go on, because the points made by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal might convince my hon. colleague for Verchères, or myself or the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia that he was wrong when he supported his party's position.
We have here in this House a dynamic where you ask all members in favour to rise first and then those opposing, but this is the last stage, the vote. That is the time when we will be called, one by one, row by row, to do it.
I respectfully submit that during debate, the principle of alternation, without being applied as strictly as on second or third readings, should nevertheless apply.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what your decision will be, but, should that be of any help to the Chair, we would agree with the suggestion of our colleague, the government whip, to allow the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve to complete his remarks. After that, we could alternate to allow for an exchange of views, as mentioned by my colleague from Bellechasse.
That would make for a better discussion, and prevent one side or the other from monopolizing the time of the House. As you suggested earlier, once we have expressed our views, the government side could have 25, 50 or even 100 speakers in a row, but I do not think this would be good for debate. May we suggest that the Chief Government Whip's proposal to alternate speakers be accepted.
[English]
An hon. member: Point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: I think I have heard enough. I have already heard from the member on this point. I do not think I need to hear from him again.
The point is a difficult and important one. The principle of alternates is a very important principle in the House. Possibly the best cure is to allow the mover and the seconder to speak and then to respect the question of alternates.
[Translation]
In this case, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve supported one of the motions. The hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve may complete his remarks. After that, we will have to alternate.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I thought we would never straighten this out, but I will continue. You are right to remind the House that
I support the motion. It may not look like it, but it does mean something when someone supports a motion in this House. When I rose earlier in the House it was as seconder of the motion.
What I mean is that we would like and we would have liked, as the hon. member for Bellechasse put it, to have plenty of time to consider the issue. It would have been terribly courteous, good practice and extremely respectful to invite opposition parties, both the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, to take part in the drafting of this bill.
As the hon. member for Bellechasse reminded the House, that was done when the issue of redistribution of seats was addressed. Let us not forget that some people fought hard and lost their lives for the right to be heard in Parliament.
It is important to come to an agreement on the issues of democracy and representation. In our system we have a tool called the list of electors. Why do we have such a tool? Because we brag about having the cleanest, most transparent election practices of the whole world, which promote a strong democracy through representation. The voters' list is an extremely important tool.
We are convinced that the more complete it is, the more information it contains, the easier it will be to track down abusers. This is why we want to see on this voters' list the same thing we have in Quebec, which is identity information, like the age and sex of voters. This would be useful come election time, enabling support staff, the clerk, and representatives to ensure that persons-
I believe my time is up. I think I will be able to continue after question period.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It being eleven o'clock, we will now proceed to Statements by Members.
I would like to congratulate Val and Steven Loughead, Stu Brandon, Jack Brezina and Sue Collings, the five planners responsible for the event, not to mention the leaders, volunteers, community sponsors and mushers who will make this race the best ever.
You only have to be a spectator, not a musher, to take part. Let Bill Payne welcome you to the main street of Minden for the excitement of seeing canine and human athletes compete for a piece of the $42,000 purse.
This merit medallion has just been awarded to Father Alfred Couturier, of the religious order of Trinitarians, from Amos, in Abitibi. This is a very good choice, since Father Couturier, affectionately known as Alfred, back home, is very well loved by the people of Abitibi and the Amos area. This truly dedicated man works unstintingly for so many causes that we sometimes feel that he is a volunteer for all organizations.
Today, in this House, I want to pay tribute to Father Couturier for the mission he has chosen to carry out among drug abusers and transients. I want to sincerely congratulate him for what he has done for them, for giving a new meaning to their lives. I thank him for his solidarity towards our community.
The Prime Minister and the government promised jobs, jobs, jobs, but constituents in Prince Rupert tell a different story. Small businesses in this community are deeply concerned and frustrated by the lack of co-operation the department of fisheries has shown with respect to waterfront development in this community.
I am told of many incidents where recalcitrant DFO bureaucrats are standing in the way of job creating developments in Prince Rupert. Last week I received a petition signed by a majority of Prince Rupert businessmen asking that DFO adopt a more reasonable posture.
On behalf of concerned citizens and businesses in Prince Rupert I call on the minister of fisheries to rein in his over zealous bureaucrats and encourage job creating small businesses in this
community and other Canadian costal communities to pursue rational waterfront development.
This event was a resounding success with more than 300 people throughout my riding of Lambton-Middlesex attending. A large number of participants, including the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Middlesex Farm and Home Safety Council, the Onyot'a:ka Community Health Nurses, the Women's Rural Resource Centre, provided valuable information and exhibits to the public. A number of local businesses were kind enough to donate prizes and food for the event.
(1105 )
Founded in 1974 as a joint effort of the local communities and the University of Western Ontario, the health centre is a unique community minded facility offering a wide variety of family health care services in the community while serving as a training facility for medical school graduates in family medicine.
My congratulations to the entire staff of the Southwest Middlesex Health Centre for hosting this event which hopefully will be held annually.
The mining industry in Canada plays a vital role in the continued well-being of our economy. Nowhere is it more important than in many rural and remote communities that depend on it for their very survival. However, the continued success of this industry is heavily dependent on its ability to export what it produces.
Ensuring that our minerals and metals producers enjoy open access to foreign markets is a central objective of the new minerals and metals policy. Its principles will guide the government in its participation in international organizations like the World Trade Organization and in its efforts globally to protect all Canadians who are dependent on a prosperous industry for their livelihood.
As the world's leading exporter of minerals and metals, Canada must play a leadership role in the management of international issues affecting th industry. The new minerals and metals policy-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.
In ``Creating Opportunity'' our government made a commitment to incorporate the principle of sustainable development into all of its activities. We are living up to that commitment.
The new minerals and metals policy is concrete evidence of this. The policy establishes a framework that integrates not only economic factors but environmental and social considerations in federal decisions about minerals and metals.
Earlier this week the natural resources committee tabled its unanimous report entitled ``Streamlining Environmental Regulations for Mining'' which provides specific prescriptions on how this policy can move forward.
By placing minerals and metals in a sustainable development context, the government's new policy ensures not only present but future generations of Canadians will reap the benefits that this important industry contributes to Canada.
Their contribution to the history of Quebec and Canada is unquestionable. In fact, on October 7, the Maison nationale des Patriotes, located in Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu, received a prestigious award from Parks Canada. This house, which once belonged to merchant and patriot Jean-Baptiste Mâsse, has been converted into an interpretation centre. Visitors are reminded of the events that led to the patriots rebellion in 1837 and 1838, when those who were then called ``Canadians'' fought against the British colonial regime.
Since each brick and each stone of a building is essential to its construction, each action taken by these patriots must make us proud of these men and women-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The member for Ottawa Centre has the floor.
There has been some progress. However, there is still much work to be done. As the deadline approaches it is our responsibility to ensure that a fair and equitable solution is found and a strike is averted.
I consider the public transportation system to be an essential service. I believe that we should look at measures where strikes and lockouts would not be necessary in this area and where in the future arbitrations become the norm.
The negotiations over the next three days are crucial. OC Transpo employees, taxpayers and people in the Ottawa-Carleton region look forward to a quick and fair settlement. My staff hopes to take the bus to work Monday morning.
Many Canadians, including me, are concerned about the employment situation in Canada. Jobs are a source of income and dignity for Canadians. Jobs are also crucial to the economic well-being of this country and remain one of my top priorities.
To create more jobs we must get Canada's public finances under control. The reduction of the deficit is of course essential to job creation and growth. The present government is well on its way to meet its targets and the country's economy is already reaping the benefits through the lowest interest rates since 1964.
(1110)
[Translation]
I am happy that the economy has created 669,000 jobs since the Liberals took office. Even though this number bodes well, I will continue to work with the government and to encourage it to put in place programs that will lead to the creation of more jobs to the benefit of all Canadians, including the constituents of Simcoe North.
[English]
These are symptoms of environmental illness. To mark National Child Day on November 20 the Environmental Illness Society of Canada had a picture drawing contest to educate Canadian children about the potential consequences of environmental pollution on human health.
Recognizing these signs is one of the first steps in maintaining good health and assuring our children a healthy future. Congratulations to all who participated and who have helped to build awareness of this illness.
It is with great pride that we salute the work done by all parties on this question. Women and men have worked without respite to make governments acknowledge the existence of wage discrimination based on sex and find a solution to the problem.
We wish to express our affection for Louise Harel who stayed the course in choppy seas; we wish to express our gratitude to Monique Gagnon-Tremblay for her support and understanding; and finally, we wish to salute the Parti Quebecois government for keeping its word and bringing in a bill that is so important to the future of women of Quebec.
The net result would simply enlarge by $2 billion a year what already exists. This would include a bigger bureaucracy, bigger undemocratic associations, more and higher paid lawyers and consultants; in short, a much enlarged Indian industry.
Current unemployment levels on reserves are pegged at 47 per cent. More money means even less incentive which will result in greater dependency on the state. Unemployment on reserves would soar even higher if these recommendations were accepted.
The recommendations divide Canadians on the basis of race. They call for the setting up of an aboriginal house of Parliament. The more we examine the report, the more it looks like a 1950s South Africa document. When is this lunacy going to stop?
The reason is simple: language is an essential component of a people's identity. In Quebec, it is a major factor of our history, our development and our sense of belonging to our country.
A study by the Conseil de la langue française published yesterday reveals that the use of French in commercial signs has begun to stabilize.
We know that the linguistic balance will always be fragile in a region like Montreal. Above all, however, we are in favour of a balanced approach to promoting an asset as fundamental as the language of a people. We are also in favour not only of measures to promote the survival of the French language but also of those that will strengthen it and so improve the cultural quality of life in Quebec and everywhere else in Canada.
(1115 )
Liberals have no trouble funding the distribution of free flags or topping up the treasuries of Liberal friendly companies, but they cannot find the money to save lives by contributing the federal share to complete our national highway system.
The government collects $5 billion annually in fuel taxes and siphons 90 per cent of it into general revenue. Given the deplorable state of the national highway system not only in Saskatchewan but in northern Ontario and in Labrador as well, how can this blatant misappropriation of funds be justified?
By granting this company an interest-free loan, the Canadian government is acting in accordance with the objective to create jobs in the Montreal area. And more important, prospects for the type transportation products built by Bombardier will be excellent in the years to come.
This is the kind of concrete action we need to protect the economic future of a major region in Canada, in an industry where future prospects in terms of jobs and increased investment are excellent.
In this way, the Canadian government is helping to improve the quality of life of all Canadians.
But wait, what is this? Unsolicited flags. That is right. The heritage minister's department is so anxious to hit one million flags by next February it is sending out unrequested flags-unsolicited, unrequested flags. Yet at the same time, the minister will not even return correspondence from Canadians like Robert Harriman at Kap-tan-Kool in Penticton who wants to turn over all his profits from a patriotic unity hat manufactured in British Columbia.
Compare that to the reports that Heritage Canada distributed patriotic T-shirts at a Montreal Alouette football game, T-shirts manufactured in Mexico, imprinted in the U.S., distributed in Quebec and paid for by Canadian taxpayers.
Gee, I sure hope all the flags are made in Canada.
Can the minister tell us whether the federal government intends to recognize aboriginals as distinct nations?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member looked at the history, he would realize we have always recognized aboriginal people as being distinct in this country.
Unfortunately being recognized as distinct has not enhanced their well-being. Right now they are looking to be up at a level table with their fellow Canadians. However, they have been here for 10,000 years. There is legislation and more constitutional and legal responsibility to deal with aboriginal peoples as distinct.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it would be useful, as the commission report points out, to do so officially, because this is not the case. Otherwise, the report would not have raised this issue.
It is difficult, I think, for the federal government to recognize the existence of distinct nations. We know this is so for Quebec, and we can see it in the case of native peoples as well.
I ask the minister whether he will agree, as a first step in negotiations with native peoples, to table a motion in the House recognizing aboriginals as distinct nations, just as Quebec did over ten years ago? I can tell him in advance that he can count on the support of the official opposition if he tables such a motion.
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government has no intention of playing the game of the Reform which is analogizing sovereignty and separation with the stigmas within the Canadian federal system.
(1120)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the government makes its decisions as a legislator by trying to avoid the Reform Party's ``games'', to use the minister's word, I can tell you we will not get very far as a society.
A number of provinces have still not recognized native peoples as distinct nations. Will the minister undertake to promote Quebec's initiative with those provinces that have still not given this recognition, so that they will join forces with the federal government in this essential recognition of native peoples as nations in order to set the stage for any serious negotiations? That is the first step, to recognize that they exist as nations, and then to begin negotiations. This is what natives are calling for, it is what the report recommends, Quebec has done it, and I urge the minister to do the same on a federal level and take this message to the provinces in order to encourage them as well to follow Quebec's example.
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize for suggesting that their idea of federation is anything like the separatists that I face.
The resolution of the assembly from René Lévesque may have said this, but in fact the separatists of Quebec feel-as said by various ministers in Quebec-that they have the right to take the 10 aboriginal communities and the Inuit with them if they decide to unilaterally secede from Canada. This is not the law. We do not accept it. It is in the Supreme Court of Canada and hopefully the separatist government will pay the same attention to the Supreme Court of Canada on UDI that they want us to pay to the Churchill Falls litigation.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the minister of Indian affairs.
Yesterday, in response to a question, the Indian affairs minister claimed, and I quote ``As the Prime Minister said when he had this job, we made a lot of mistakes on their behalf through the Indian agents. It is time for them to make a few mistakes on their own''. The federal government is slow in admitting its mistakes relating to the abuse of aboriginal children in residential schools.
As many native bands are asking, does the federal government intend to admit its responsibility in this shameful history of abuse, and to make official apologies to the victims in the aboriginal communities?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise is not correct. I am not going to give the history of the last three years. I will just give the history of the last three weeks.
In the last three weeks we have admitted our mistakes collectively in Labrador. We are reaching agreement with the Inuit of Davis Inlet on relocation. We have admitted our mistakes north of the 60th parallel by not allowing First Nations to come to the negotiating table when we are talking about minerals. We have a package, BHP in the territories and Treaty No. 8 and Treaty No. 11 of which the federal government is proud.
Two weeks ago in Saskatchewan we admitted our mistakes. In the provinces of Saskatchewan and B.C. we say there is an inherent right of First Nations. I would be the first to admit that we have made mistakes in the past and I would be the first as a representative of this government to go out there and try to do our best to remedy those mistakes.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this may well be question period, but it is certainly not an answer period. At least four questions have been asked of the minister, and he has sidestepped them all.
To get back to residential schools. Residential schools weakened aboriginal culture, weakened aboriginal languages, weakened aboriginal traditions. I have a serious question to ask of the minister. I am asking him to give me an answer.
How can the minister deny the government's responsibility-we are asking him to acknowledge it, not deny it-when, thirty years ago, in the days of the residential schools, the government had recognized in court that residential school staff were employees of the crown. Let it then acknowledge its responsibility.
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member wants a direct answer to a direct question. He is right.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development misled Canadians about Reform's principles and policies related to aboriginal peoples.
(1125 )
The minister mocked our suggestion that individual aboriginal people be given a choice about where they want their money sent. Do they want their money sent to the chief and council or do they want to receive the money directly from the federal government?
Why is the minister afraid to make treaty entitlements payable directly to grassroots Indian people?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will play it a little slower for the hon. member.
In our relationship with governments, whether it is Alberta or B.C., on the transfers that the Minister of Finance makes with our programs, we deal with governments. They decide whether they are going to build hospitals or schools.
Is the Reform suggesting that we send all of the people in B.C. a cheque directly from the Minister of Finance, leaving us broke and leaving the provincial government broke? That does not work.
What Reform is suggesting is that we send $10,000 to each native, which means that there is nothing in my budget, nothing in the Minister of Health's budget and nothing in the Minister of Justice's budget. That is what the Reform is suggesting.
Ms. Meredith: What a shame.
Mr. Mayfield: You are smarter than that.
Mr. Irwin: I am smarter than that. It is too bad that the Reform member is not smarter than that. That is what he said on TV yesterday.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the comments of the minister make it abundantly clear that the minister is afraid to cut funds to the Indian industry.
On page 39 of volume 5 of the royal commission's report it states that in 1992-93 government expenditures relating to the aboriginal people were $15,714 for every man, woman and child. That is before adding in increases in federal funding since that time which total $1.5 billion.
Can the minister tell Canadians how much of this cash actually finds its way into the hands of grassroots Indian people living on the reserves?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is mistruths or misinformation that the Reform is putting out. I will go slowly or maybe we can put it into cartoons so the Reform will understand it.
When a school is built worth $10 million to $12 million, the Reform has taken that money for that school vis-à-vis Indians and said that every Indian gets $15,000. That is not a fact. In fact schools are built with it. Sewers are built with it. Water systems are built with it. All these things are done to help all the public on the reserves. That does not mean that an individual Indian gets $15,000 any more than it means that because Parliament Buildings are here the cost of these Parliament Buildings is $10,000 or $15,000 in the pocket of each Canadian.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, back in 1969, when the present Prime Minister was the minister of Indian affairs, the Liberals had a policy based on the fundamental principle of equality. I quote: ``Non-discriminatory participation of Indian people in Canadian society.'' If they had stayed on
the equality track maybe there would have been no Oka, no Gustafsen Lake and no Ipperwash.
When will the minister repeal the Indian Act which divides us on the basis of race and replace it with new legislation based on the principles of equality, democracy and accountability; principles that would give individual Indian people real choices about what they want done with their land and their treaty entitlements?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the Indian Act now. We will be looking at 18 sections in which the minister has power that will be transferred to aboriginal people.
We will be looking at sections pertaining to western Canada which say that they cannot sell their grain unless I approve it. In western Canada they cannot sell their pork unless I approve it.
That will be in the House probably in the first week of December. From what this member said today, I expect him to be on his feet supporting those amendments.
[Translation]
Day in and day out, the federal government contradicts itself about Canadian Airlines. Last Friday, representatives of the company and the federal government said that Ottawa would intervene to save Canadian if employees would agree to a salary reduction. On Monday, in response to questions from the Bloc Quebecois, the government denied its intention to intervene. On Tuesday, the Minister of Transport told the unions that Ottawa would intervene if Canadian and its employees failed to reach an agreement. On Wednesday, the Prime Minister reiterated his government's intention not to intervene.
Could the minister decide which it is finally and be clear about his government's intentions to help Canadian International?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction, except in the mind of the hon. member.
The situation is straightforward. This is the restructuring of a private company. It requires the employees to take part. It requires suppliers to take part. It requires American Airlines' parent company, AMR, to take part and it requires substantial change to change it from a company in the red, a company which is losing money, to a profitable company which is in the black.
That cannot be done by the government. It cannot be done by the injection of government money. It requires restructuring. That is the government's straightforward position and it has been the same from the beginning of the problem.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister has yet to make a decision.
Will the minister acknowledge at least that any federal intervention in the Canadian affair must be governed by three conditions: the first, that it not inject new public funds; the second, that it prevent American control over part of the industry; and third, that it save as many jobs as possible?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have received no requests from the company to intervene. That is where the Bloc has been in error frequently in its questioning. We have not been requested to intervene.
Now what might happen in the future and the speculative nature of the member's questions are impossible for me to answer under the rules of the House.
Will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development assure all Canadians their fundamental rights and freedoms are protected from any government invoking the notwithstanding clause to deny those rights, including equality and property rights?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a problem. The notwithstanding clause applies to the provinces. It is supported by most members of the Reform Party in a former life, and I see that some of them are going back to it. They want that clause in there.
The royal commission has highlighted that there is no provision in the charter in relation to self-government, no constitutional change to give the same rights to aboriginal people. But the hon. member is accurate, it is there, a dichotomy that is going to have to be dealt with by constitutional change at some point.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, aboriginal women are concerned about their right of individual equality under aboriginal self-government.
What guarantees can the minister offer aboriginal women that their right of individual equality is not endangered by self-government?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring back to the charter of rights. It was always the position of the Liberal government under former Prime Minister Trudeau that this should be entrenched, that there should not be a notwithstanding clause. It is there only because it was forced on us by the premiers and by the Conservative governments of the time.
I hope that at some point we can take the notwithstanding clause out of the Constitution so that the charter of rights is free standing both for aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people.
[Translation]
On Monday, in response to a suggestion by the Bloc Quebecois to merge Canadian International and Air Canada, the industry minister stated that it would be an insult for western Canada. However, the fact of Canada having a single international air carrier is not insulting, either for the West or for Quebec. It is clear that the minister's statement was only intended to exacerbate tensions between Quebec and western Canada.
Does the minister realize that the only fair and lasting solution to the problems facing the airline industry in Canada is the one put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, namely to create one single international airline as is the case for instance in France, England and Germany?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, government policy with respect to air travel is to try to encourage competition so that the Canadian consumer can receive the benefit of lower fares and more frequent flights.
We do not have before us a serious proposal from anyone, including the Bloc, to merge the two airlines. What we have instead is a situation where one of the two major airlines in Canada is facing restructuring so that it can occupy a more profitable niche of the air travel market and where it can be turned from a company that has been losing substantial amounts of money into a company that is profitable.
I should remind the hon. member that Air Canada too over the last 10 years has lost substantial amounts of money, approximately $600 million.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, my question was addressed to the industry minister. I would have liked him to elaborate on the comments he made on Monday when he seemed to be pitting the west against Quebec. Therefore, I redirect my question to the minister regarding what he said on Monday.
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I really can add little to the reply that I made earlier, other than to remind the hon. member, who is new to the House, that questions are addressed to the government as a whole and while an individual member may address a question to an individual minister, it is the government that responds, and any government member can reply to such a question.
While young Canadians become addicted, the health minister fights with the finance minister over tax provisions in the proposed legislation.
When will the finance minister quit the internal warfare and give the health minister a green light on taxes so we can have warfare on addiction instead of warfare in cabinet?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is off base on this.
The health minister has prepared legislation in response to a blueprint document that has been in the public domain for a whole year. There have been 3,000 plus responses, written and otherwise, and the legislation is being prepared on the basis of the consultations that have taken place. It will come in due course.
The hon. member already knows that we have indicated it will be here and it will be here soon.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary in answering for the finance minister has not given us the background to this. It is very clear that there is infighting and even with Reform Party help we cannot see that this legislation is actually going to get through the House in time. Meanwhile, hundreds, if not thousands of teenagers are becoming addicted to cigarettes.
When will the Liberals shut down their leadership race, get the health minister and finance minister on side so we can save Canadians lives?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate that the Reform Party and this member in particular, for whom I have some respect, is incapable of dealing with an issue of major importance to Canadians and give it the seriousness that it requires.
The hon. member knows full well that at the time the tobacco taxes were lowered, the Prime Minister, the then Minister of Health and myself said that we were going to monitor the situation closely with the provinces; that it was our intention to see the taxes rise as soon as it could be done and to the extent that it could be done without triggering further contraband; and that we would be guided in those discussions between the provinces and ourselves and in our discussions with the Solicitor General of Canada and the Mounties.
(1140 )
The member knows that full well. That is the government's intention. It has been stated on a number of occasions. The member also knows that the Minister of Health and the parliamentary secretary have again confirmed that the government is prepared to come forth with its package, which it will do.
The hon. member continues to stand up in this House and ask questions when the Minister of Health has stated very clearly that he will do it in his own good time. He knows the government will make an announcement when it is ready to make an announcement. It makes no sense for the hon. member to take the time of this House instead of debating the issue as fundamentally and seriously as it should be treated.
The Bloc Quebecois has just received copy of a 1992 report produced for Transport Canada showing that there are so many flaws in the ferry running from Magdalen Islands to the mainland, the Lucy Maud Montgomery, that it would cost close to $12 million to refit that ship which could otherwise be the cause of some major incident, and even the loss of lives. This morning local stakeholders informed us that, since 1992, only $4 million have been invested in the refitting of the ferry.
Does the minister intend to publish the coast guard report on the safety of the Lucy Maud Montgomery and does he intend to go ahead with the plans for replacing that ferry, in accordance with what was asked by the round table on transportation for the Magdalen Islands in a letter sent to the Prime Minister and of which he received copy yesterday?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately yesterday I was in western Canada and I did not receive a copy of the letter to which the hon. member has made reference. I will certainly look at it and when I have the details I will provide him with a response to his inquiry.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the minister is looking into the matter, let me remind him that the people of the Magdalen Islands have been waiting since 1994.
While he is thinking about the problem, since he has the required funds, what is the transport minister waiting for to approve the purchase of a ship, as requested by all the stakeholders on the islands?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must know that he injects into the preamble to his question references to documents which I do not have in front of me and do not have the details of. He simply cannot expect a responsible answer from any minister unless we have examined the document.
If their questions were precise in terms of issues instead of being filled with preambles which refer to so many other things, it might be a little easier for us to reply in the House in a direct manner to a direct question.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton North for that question which allows me to clarify the situation.
The purpose of that report was to evaluate problems in the operations at the centre in Vegreville and not to evaluate anything in the community of Vegreville. This was clear in the terms of reference given by the deputy minister.
The result of this study is very clear. It states problems in the centre. There is no judgment at all on the community of Vegreville. Let us be clear about that.
We all heard the comments of the mayor of Vegreville yesterday. I commend the mayor for taking the time to read the report before commenting. I commend him for his leadership in this matter. He concluded it was an internal review of the centre. That is why the deputy minister took action immediately at the centre.
My question is for the minister of trade. As the minister refuses to table individual mill quotas thus keeping them secret, will he at least table a full list of companies that received lumber quotas in the last round?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has responded to these questions several times in the House pointing out there are basic commercial rights that have to be honoured and respected.
It is important to point out that the allocation formula for the softwood lumber quota was arrived at, at full, open, transparent consultations with all the industry. There was nothing secret and nothing hidden. It was done in full co-operation with the industry.
The hon. member's suggestion now that there is some kind of conspiracy and plot by the government simply indicates that he is in fact accusing the industry itself of that kind of practice because the quota system was totally and completely done in full co-operation with the private sector.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is exactly the reverse. It is now the companies that are accusing this government of conspiracy.
The minister has stated in this House that he has no problems if individual companies publicly divulge their lumber allocation quotas. The problem is that only the minister knows which companies were allotted quotas.
In order to save jobs, individual mill owners must be able to negotiate allocations between themselves. However, they do not know the players because the minister refuses to release the names to the public.
In order to save sawmill jobs, will the minister table a full list of companies receiving lumber quotas?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very important to go to what is the basic cause of the hon. member's protestations in the House. The fact is that once the quotas were allocated, many companies used up their allocation in a very anxious way to take advantage of the market. That was a business decision that they made. Now that they have found that the allocation of the quota is no longer sufficient, they are attempting to find ways of increasing it.
The Minister for International Trade said there is a reserve system that can be given to companies that they in effect can bank their quota against next year's allocation. That would allow them to keep their plants running and keep the jobs going. It is an orderly system that was set up under the agreement.
To now start trying to bargain in the Chamber of the House of Commons about getting more individual allocations for individual companies is simply not the way to do good business.
The crimes of genocide committed in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda, in particular, led to the creation of provisional international tribunals. Yet, we know full well that other crimes of that nature are also being committed elsewhere in the world.
Since, as Amnesty International was saying, ``you do not create provisional tribunals to solve permanent problems'', has the minister ever considered playing a leadership role in the international community to obtain the creation of a permanent international court of criminal justice?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the speech I delivered to the General Assembly of the United Nations last September I explained clearly that Canada would support the establishment of a permanent international court of criminal justice.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we know that Canada said that it would make the arrest of war criminals in Bosnia a priority. Yet, nearly 100,000 people are rotting in Rwandan jails without ever having been brought to trial.
(1150)
While the international community tries to set up a permanent tribunal, with the support of Canada naturally, as the minister just said, does the minister not believe that priority should also be given to the orderly operation of the international tribunal in Rwanda, and especially to its operation according to the rule of law?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member about the real imperative and necessity of prosecuting war criminals.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Canada has been given the honour of having Judge Louise Arbour as the chief prosecutor for the international war crimes tribunal. In a meeting with Judge Arbour about a month ago, she expressed the same concern as the hon. member does about the need to prosecute more actively in Rwanda for war crimes issues.
We are prepared to offer all assistance to Judge Arbour in terms of enhancing her capacity for investigation and prosecution and to secure the services of Canadians in the judicial and legal fields to help in that regard. All we are really waiting for is a full complement of what Judge Arbour would need and we will certainly respond in the most active and effective way possible.
On what basis did the Minister of Justice approve the leave of absence for Madam Justice Arbour to work as a prosecutor for the UN while she is still a judge? We have just heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us that she is going to be an active and aggressive prosecutor. She is a member of the impartial bench in Canada. How can she be an impartial judge and a prosecutor at the same time?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is discouraging to have to respond to that question and it is distressing that the question was put.
A few feet away from the member's place an exchange just occurred involving the Minister of Foreign Affairs who described to the House the honour that was done this country when one of our best, a judge of the Ontario Court of Appeal, was asked to assume responsibility as the chief prosecutor for war crimes. By unanimous resolution of the United Nations Security Council she was singled out for that task. She left her judicial duties. She took a leave of absence. She has travelled halfway around the world to work in difficult circumstances engaged in that crucial responsibility.
During the months that we have tried to amend the statute to overcome the technical prohibition against her being paid by others for doing that work, we have encountered nothing but meanspirited, narrow-focused and inappropriate objections from sources who somehow fail to grasp both the importance of that work and the honour that she brings to this country.
I invite the hon. member to rise above the niggling legalisms upon which he now relies for partisan purposes and to join with this government in making sure that Madam Justice Louise Arbour is permitted to do that work on behalf of Canada and on behalf of all humanity.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am disturbed by the response from the Minister of Justice who is asking me to rise above niggling little legal details which prevent Madam Justice Louise Arbour from taking this position. The Minister of Justice is the highest position in this land to uphold the law of this land. To have those kinds of words coming from him in this House belittles the position which he holds.
Let me quote the minister's own words. Before the Senate committee on October 7 he said: ``There is no provision in the Judges Act for a federally appointed judge such as Madam Justice Louise Arbour to be granted a leave of absence without pay to work for an international organization such as the United Nations''.
(1155 )
I have a great deal of respect for Madam Justice Louise Arbour. I have a great deal of respect for the work that she has been asked to do in the United Nations, but I do not think that we should trample the laws of Canada to allow her to go over there to uphold the laws for the United Nations.
The Minister of Justice could have picked anyone else in Canada rather than someone from the bench. I am sure there are many people who are perfectly capable of doing the job. Therefore, I ask him again: Why is he allowing the laws of this land to be trampled in order for someone to uphold the laws somewhere else?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member combines an ignorance of the law with a meanness of spirit when he puts that question.
In the first place, I am not the one who suggested Madam Justice Arbour, it was the United Nations Security Council. Second,
Madam Justice Arbour is not in breach of any Canadian law in taking a leave of absence for other purposes.
The prohibition in the Judges Act is against her taking money from any other source. It is that which is addressed by Bill C-42, which was passed by this House, sent back with an amendment by the Senate for reasons best known to the Senate, and which is now before this House for adoption with the Senate's change.
I emphasize that there is nothing unlawful or inconsistent with the Judges Act or any other law of Canada which Madam Justice Arbour has done.
[English]
I would like to compliment the hon. member for Laval East for her questions on war criminals. My question really is supplementary to hers.
At a recent conference regarding war criminals in Bosnia-Hercegovina, Justice Richard Goldstone expressed concerns that many who have been indicted for crimes against humanity are not being arrested and brought to The Hague to face criminal charges.
I ask the minister: What specific instructions has Canada given to its IFOR peacekeepers to assist in bringing these indicted war criminals to justice?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad that we are now engaging in an exchange on one of the more crucial and vital contributions that Canada can make through the work of Justice Arbour in the international realm.
What we know now is that there are still many unindicted war criminals in Bosnia. Until they are apprehended, the opportunity for a peaceful solution in that country will be severely hindered. We will begin to discuss over the next three or four weeks in the NATO circles the extension of the IFOR engagement. We will be putting forward a number of proposals to substantially strengthen the capacity of the war crimes tribunal through the work of IFOR and other means of the allied groups that are in Bosnia to apprehend these criminals and to support the work of the tribunal. I will be going before the parliamentary committee on Tuesday to raise those very same questions so we can get parliamentary input.
This demonstrates that we have an opportunity in this country, through the office of Judge Arbour and the war crimes tribunal, to make a very significant and important contribution to bring peace and reconciliation to the wartorn land of Bosnia.
[Translation]
Last week, the industry minister issued an information sheet aimed at consumers of direct-to-home satellite broadcasting services and stipulating that it might be a crime for consumers to have equipment used to pick up non-authorized American signals in Canada. The industry minister is relying on importers, suppliers and retailers of satellite broadcasting material to relay this information to consumers.
Does the minister expect that those who sold this equipment and who contributed to create the problem will be able to enforce his regulations?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we tried to give all consumers the information necessary for making judicious decisions.
This equipment is rather expensive. We are concerned with the fact that several consumers paid over $1,000 for equipment that might not be sufficient to receive satellite programming in the future. This equipment is rather specialized, and the changes in the services that will be available to Canadians will, in turn, require technological changes.
[English]
I operated under and with the military justice system for more than 36 years. I always considered that it was as or more fair than the civilian justice system.
However, events in Somalia and a rising number of grievances being submitted to the chief of defence staff indicate that there is some reluctance among the rank and file to trust the military justice system. The minister's predecessor indicated that there would be a study of the military justice system.
Would the minister consider in light of the red book promise submitting a review of the justice system to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs for its consideration and report?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.
The Department of National Defence is reviewing the justice system for the military. I share the hon. member's views that generally speaking it has worked well for a very long time but, as in any system, there is always ample room for improvement.
We will be bringing forward some changes to the military justice system and certainly, as has been the case with matters relating to the Department of National Defence and the military, I expect that it is very probable that they would be considered by the standing committee.
However, as the hon. member would know, I do not dictate what the committee will entertain in terms of its own agenda, but I would be pleased at the appropriate time to have the very valuable input that we always get from that committee.
On November 8, a reporter from the TVA network explained that it was very easy to cheat on old age security benefits. The journalist even managed to get more than $5,000 from the federal government by using the birth certificate of a person deceased four years earlier, without any check being made by the department.
Last year, the department's investigators uncovered, to their dismay, fraud in excess of $4 million. Can the minister tell us about the scope of this year's fraudulent activities and why it is so easy to cheat?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and the Department of Human Resources Development have a duty to serve Canadians well. When people apply for benefits late, that is some time after they have become entitled to such benefits, we quickly issue a cheque to them and a verification is conducted during the weeks and the months following the issuance of that first cheque. This is a perfectly normal procedure.
However, it is illegal to deliberately submit an ineligible application to the department and to take advantage of our goodwill and our good faith. We want to reassure this House and all Canadians that we have audit systems in place to detect fraudulent activities, and that these systems are constantly updated and have been greatly improved in recent years, thanks to the new technology.
Canadians should know that losing $4 million out of a total budget of $57 billion is pretty good compared to what happens in many other countries, and that we are working very hard to improve the system even more, because Canadians deserve the best.
The bottom line is that those who are entitled to a cheque must receive it as quickly as possible. Providing good service must remain our priority.
The Minister of Transport, who has been a member of this House for a longer period of time, who has a lot of experience, should be aware that the Speaker has previously informed the official opposition that any question dealing with the administrative duties of an individual minister or with a statement made by an individual minister should be put to the minister in question.
(1205)
I just wanted to remind my colleague, the Minister of Transport, that seniority and experience are not always synonymous with wisdom and good judgment.
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be mixing up the questions put and the responses given.
The fact is that any member of the opposition can address any question to any member of the government. However, the Prime Minister may answer any question himself or some other minister might answer any question, depending on the decision of the government.
The actual response to a question from the other side of the House is from the government. The government speaks as one voice and, therefore, the principle of the solidarity of cabinet is preserved.
I will be happy to discuss this more fully with the hon. House leader of the opposition because really there is no issue of privilege whatsoever or a point of order.
If the member wishes to have lunch with me sometime and chat about this a bit more, we might even invite the Speaker to come along.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the invitation, I would certainly be pleased to do so one day.
However, I want to point out to the Minister of Transport that, pursuant to a previous ruling by the Speaker, my young colleague could not put his question to anyone else but the Minister of Industry, who preferred to dodge the question and evade the issue.
The Deputy Speaker: I want to thank my colleagues for their comments.