38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 125
CONTENTS
Monday, September 26, 2005
|
 |
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Minister for Internal Trade, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Vacancy |
|
|
Surrey North |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Message from the Senate |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Chan |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin |
|
|
Mr. Marc Godbout (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
|
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Godbout (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Thunder Bay Border Cats |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.) |
|
|
Gasoline Prices |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) |
|
|
Orleans Rebels |
|
|
Mr. Marc Godbout (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.) |
|
|
Simon Wiesenthal |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ) |
|
|
Hurricane Katrina |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) |
|
|
Emergency Preparedness |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) |
|
|
Simon Wiesenthal |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.) |
|
|
Gérin-Lajoie Doctrine |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) |
|
|
Simon Wiesenthal |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Internet in Schools |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.) |
|
|
Terry Fox's Marathon of Hope |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Anthony Gordon, Leo Johnston, Brock Myrol and Peter Schiemann |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Gasoline Prices |
|
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Chuck Cadman |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Somalia |
|
|
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Élie Fallu |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
Member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, CPC) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTIONS
|
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Gasoline Prices |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Gasoline Prices |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Service Canada |
|
|
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.) |
|
|
Official Languages |
|
|
Ms. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Technology Partnerships Canada |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
International Aid |
|
|
Mr. David Smith (Pontiac, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.) |
|
|
Income Trusts |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation |
|
|
Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Infrastructure |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. John Godfrey (Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), Lib.) |
|
|
Automobile Industry |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Older Workers |
|
|
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. Todd Norman Russell (Labrador, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Child Care |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. James Jerome |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Business of Supply |
|
|
Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Report of Chief Electoral Officer |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Procedure and House Affairs |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
|
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
|
|
|
Spirit Drinks Trade Act |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson |
|
|
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Canadian National Railways |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) |
|
|
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC) |
|
|
Carley's Law |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Request for Emergency Debate |
|
|
Gasoline Prices |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Investigation by Ethics Commissioner |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
|
Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ) |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
|
Mr. Guy André |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
|
Mr. Don Bell (North Vancouver, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC) |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of State (Human Resources Development), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
|
Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville |
|
|
EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
|
|
Gasoline Prices |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne |
|
|
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum |
|
|
Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan |
|
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
|
Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mrs. Carole Lavallée |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Mrs. Carole Lavallée |
|
|
Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Jonquière—Alma, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Sébastien Gagnon |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Sébastien Gagnon |
|
|
Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bryon Wilfert |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Bryon Wilfert |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff |
|
|
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Monday, September 26, 2005
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
* * *
(1100)
[Translation]
Business of the House
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Minister for Internal Trade, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me wish you and all my hon. colleagues a good session.
Consultations have taken place with all the parties and, if you were to seek it, I believe that you would find unanimous consent for the following motion.
[English]
|
That on Tuesday, September 27, 2005, the hours of sitting and order of business shall be those of a Wednesday. |
[Translation]
The Speaker: Does the hon. Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
Vacancy
Surrey North
The Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation in the House of Commons for the electoral district of Surrey North in the province of British Columbia by reason of the death of our dear colleague, Mr. Chuck Cadman.
Pursuant to subsection 28(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed on Tuesday, July 19, 2005, a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill the vacancy.
* * *
[Translation]
Message from the Senate
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-37, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, and Bill S-38, an act respecting the implementation of international trade commitments by Canada regarding spirit drinks of foreign countries, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
(1105)
[English]
Agriculture
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) moved:
|
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should make available directly to farmers the 2% strychnine solution. |
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging that we start off this session of Parliament with an issue that is probably the most important issue we will deal with in this Parliament. The issue of controlling the Richardson's ground squirrel, which is commonly known as the gopher, is an important issue for some of my constituents and for many people in western Canada.
I have been pursuing this issue for many years. When I first brought it to the House many members laughed that such an issue would be brought before this place. The fact is that the Richardson's ground squirrel causes damage of up to $200 million a year in western Canada. We do not know the exact cost but $200 million is a rough estimate which seems to make sense when one considers the crop damage, the extra labour involved in trying to control the Richardson's ground squirrel with the limited and ineffective products that are available, the damage to equipment and machinery due to the holes and the mounds made by gophers, and the livestock that have to be put down because they broke their legs stepping into a gopher hole. In a bad year, $200 million is certainly a realistic number and it shows the importance of this issue.
Two hundred million dollars is a cost that farmers simply cannot stand to bear on top of the other increased costs that they have felt over the past months and years. Along with skyrocketing costs, prices of their crops have been declining steadily. The price of wheat, barley, canola, peas and all commodities are as low as I have ever seen them in the time I have been farming.
At the same time, due to a move made by the government in 1993, carried out over the last few years, a move that removed the only effective control of the Richardson's ground squirrel, farmers have been forced to bear this extra cost of possibly $200 million a year. That is a lot of money, and it is a serious problem.
I will just read my motion for the record. It is simple, direct and short.
|
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should make available directly to farmers the 2% strychnine solution. |
I get a bit uncomfortable standing before the House knowing that Canadians are listening to us talk about using a poison to control gophers. Quite frankly, with the kind of damage that has been done, they have to be controlled in some fashion. The strychnine solution mixed by farmers themselves is the only effective product that could be made available. That is why it is important that we return this product to farmers.
Back in about 1997, I put forward two motions for the production of papers. The Department of Agriculture provided about 200 pages of information that was supposed to explain why it had removed this product from the market in the first place. Quite frankly, it was embarrassing and completely unacceptable. The reasons the government gave for removing this product were completely unconvincing, and that is putting it mildly.
There were a few complaints by a few animal rights people and a few complaints that non-targeted species had been poisoned, and particularly that the poison had been used illegally on neighbours' dogs and that type of thing. A lot of other substances could be used to poison a neighbour's dog if someone chose to do that. Since it is against the law to do that why do we not uphold the law instead of removing this product that is so important to farmers? That is the issue and that is the issue the government has not dealt with.
Just to show how unimportant agriculture is to the government I would like to point out that this issue is being spearheaded by the Minister of Health instead of the Minister of Agriculture. I understand that both departments are involved in making this decision but the Department of Agriculture has a lot more information on this product and on its importance than anyone else. It should have received the information from the Department of Health but there is not much there.
(1110)
Last Thursday I received a backgrounder put out by the Department of Health on this product. Obviously my continual interventions on behalf of farmers are having an impact. What is in the backgrounder is embarrassing. No reasons were given for removing the product and no excuses for not returning it. The department acknowledges that it is the only truly effective product available to farmers but it makes two absolutely incorrect statements and one is false.
One statement is that there are two products available to farmers, one being a premix that is done by the municipalities. In fact, that has not been available over the past year.
The other statement is that there is a premix that is done in the Toronto area which is then shipped out west. This product is simply mixed with farmers' grain and then shipped back. It is extremely expensive. The department says that it is an effective product for control. If one were to talk to my neighbours and people across the Prairies they would hear that it is not effective. that it is extremely expensive and that it is impractical.
All farmers are asking for is to have this 2% strychnine solution returned to them so they can mix it with their own grain and effectively control this terrible pest that costs up to $200 million or more in a bad year. It should not be that difficult for the government to deliver on this. I certainly hope the government will be supporting the motion as we go along in the process to adopt the motion.
If the motion is passed, the issue will be given to the appropriate committee which I assume will be the agriculture committee as it is the committee that makes sense. It would deal with it, put legislation together and then have the legislation once again come before House and hopefully passed by the House. The farmers would then have this product returned to them, a product that would safely control the Richardson's ground squirrel, commonly called the gopher.
What has happened with this product simply demonstrates what happens all too often with this government. I hate to step in here right away sounding so critical of the government. I will acknowledge that over the past 100 years Liberal governments have provided some good government from time to time. They have not always provided bad government but unfortunately they have not provided good government over the past 12 years.
In its 12 year mandate the government has too often used the same knee-jerk type of reaction that it has used in the strychnine problem. This demonstrates part of the problem with the government. It simply made a decision based on input from fewer than a dozen people, according to the papers which I received under production of papers, who had complained about this product. It did no evaluation of the cost to farmers which is why I cannot give a definite number on the costs to farmers in terms of damage to crops, machinery damage, livestock having to be destroyed and that type of thing. A study has never been done. This demonstrates how the government operates. It cares so little for farmers that it has the health minister handling the issue instead of the agriculture minister and the agriculture department. I think I know the reason for that.
I would be willing to bet that if the agriculture department had put together this background information that was sent out last Thursday it would have come out supporting this motion. The government simply cannot admit that it has made a mistake so it made sure it went to the health department which knows nothing about the issue and does not really care about the issue. As a result it probably will not support the motion, although I sincerely hope this time it will do the right thing.
The government should keep in mind that a possible election will be called sometime over the next year if the Prime Minister honours his promise to call an election within a month of the Gomery report coming out. That is the only thing that seems to really cause the government to change its mind or at least to make statements on issues.
(1115)
Unfortunately, so often those statements are not followed up on, but at least the government will make statements during the pre-election period that it otherwise would not. I am hoping that one of those statements will be that the government will return this product to the hands of farmers.
What I want to do now is tell farmers that they now have a chance to have some input on this issue. I will read for the House a small section of a backgrounder from the Health Department. It states, “Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency has re-evaluated the available data on strychnine and is inviting comment on the proposals for its continuing use”.
First of all, if the agency has re-evaluated the available data, I want to see that data. I ask the health minister to table that data with the House. If the agency has done an evaluation and a study it only makes sense that the information should be provided to the House and to farmers across the country.
I will continue with the rest of the agency statement. The agency “is inviting comment on the proposals for its continuing use. The comment period begins on September 26, 2005, for a period of 60 days”. Of course it is the wrong time of the year because harvest will be going on during October and probably still in early November this year, but the government has finally provided an opportunity for farmers to have direct input on this issue.
I encourage farmers right across western Canada in areas affected by this terrible plague of Richardson's ground squirrels, gophers, to write to the health minister and the agriculture minister and send copies to their local MPs. A copy to me would be wonderful, as I have been trying for years on their behalf to have this product returned. I encourage farmers to write in with their explanation of why this product is desperately needed. I encourage them to take part and to make sure they do it before the deadline of November 25 or 26.
I will be contacting farmers further on this issue to try to give them the information necessary for them to have input on returning this 2% strychnine solution so they can mix on their own, but I do want to read out for the record the agency address. It is: Pest Management Regulatory Agency, 2720 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K9. The number A.L.6606D2 should be put on the letter as a reference number so the people receiving the letter will be able to ensure that the proposals make it directly to the appropriate people.
I strongly encourage farmers not only in my constituency but across western Canada to provide their input now. This will probably be their only chance and it has been a long time in coming. It has been much too slow.
It is interesting that the government has removed this product from the hands of farmers and yet it has given on at least three or four occasions now a special emergency registration for the product. Unfortunately, it has not been done in a fashion that is extremely helpful in that it requires someone else to premix this product for them. Anyone who has used this product knows that if the liquid strychnine is mixed ahead of time with the grain used as bait, the bait will not work. Gophers do not find it appealing and just will not eat it and, as a result, the control measure does not work.
Since the government has reinstated this emergency registration, why does it not do the right thing now and restore to farmers the 2% solution of strychnine? It was used effectively and safely for decades, for most of this past century, in fact. Problems were very rare. Occasionally the product was used illegally to poison neighbours' dogs and other things like that, but any other product could be used for that too. We should deal with that under the law and come down hard on people who use it illegally because that is not acceptable.
Why should our farmers not have this product which is so valuable to them, is very much needed and may save a cost of $200 million a year? Why should it be removed because of the actions of a very few people over the years? It should not. I encourage the government to do the right thing and return the 2% solution of strychnine to farmers to help save up to $200 million a year.
(1120)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising this issue. It is certainly an important issue for our farmers, who need all the support that they can get given the recent history of the agricultural community.
The research also shows, as a result of a single test case in Saskatchewan, that seven to twelve million lethal doses of the strychnine were available for birds and mammals to eat, not just gophers. In addition, it was found that the carcasses of these birds and mammals were available to their own predators. These animals also died through eating the poison carcasses. It is estimated that in a single season of strychnine use in Saskatchewan some 6,000 strychnine-poisoned carcasses were available to predators.
With that as a starting point, I note that the motion calls for the 2% solution of fresh bait formulations, yet the government allows producers access to a ready-to-use concentrate of 0.4% strychnine baits, which are commercially available. These are as effective as the 2% strychnine concentrate and are safer to use. The governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan are supportive of these commercially available fresh strychnine products.
That is the research. It does show that there is a concern about other birds and mammals and there is also the assertion, agreed with by Alberta and Saskatchewan, that the 0.4% solution is as effective as the 2%. I wonder if the member would care to comment.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is unfortunately a victim of misinformation sent out by the health department. The 0.4% solution simply is not effective. Farmers know that. They have tried it. They have used it for the past several years. As well, it is premixed in Toronto so it is dry by the time it gets to the farmers and the gophers are not very interested in it.
Besides that, it has to be received at just the right time. There is a very narrow window in which gophers will eat this bait and it is effective at controlling them. It has to be received within a few days, in the early spring before the grass starts growing, because gophers will eat grass rather than the bait if it is not received at the right time.
So first of all, it is not effective, and second, anyone who has used this product knows that if the 2% solution is used instead of the 0.4%, which is not effective, gophers will normally find their way back down the hole and in fact their carcasses will not be available. Also, if bait stations are used, gophers will die within the bait stations and their carcasses will not be available.
As well, birds of prey will not eat a carcass. What they eat has to be moving or they simply will not eat it. If they do, can they eat enough to cause damage? Although I will admit it is not a real study that has been done, the resulting information seems to show that they simply could not eat enough to do damage and to kill them. Throughout all these decades in which farmers were using this 2% and even 5% solution of strychnine, the number of birds of prey in the country was continually increasing.
The problem outlined by the member is a problem which I think is only in the minds of those at Health Canada, unfortunately. If they had taken the time to really communicate with Agriculture Canada in an honest way and to communicate with the agriculture departments in the provinces, I think they would have found, in fact, that this is simply not the case. I am glad the member brought it up, but it is not a real problem. It is a perceived problem.
(1125)
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the member. I know his riding is similar to mine in many respects. I have travelled through the riding over the last two or three years. I have seen with my own eyes the devastation that gophers can cause to the crop of a farmer. I do not believe that members who do not support this idea of bringing the gopher population under control really understand the seriousness of the problem.
I doubt if the Liberal member who just spoke has ever walked through a grain field where gopher damage has occurred, but I would like to invite him out some time. I would take him through a trail, but he would probably fall in one because he would not know what he is looking at.
These people do not seem to understand the seriousness of this, so I would like the member to emphasize it just one more time. I know he sees it in his riding. I have seen it in mine. Farmers really hurt from these predators and we need to take it seriously and take it seriously now. Does the member believe the government is willing to support the seriousness of this problem, willing enough to do something about it?
Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not have brought this issue before Parliament the number of times I have over the past nine years, or over whatever number of years I have been pursuing it, if it were not a problem that is extremely important to the people of western Canada and to my constituents.
It is an important problem, as anyone who has seen a field would know. On my own farm, I had about 60 acres of canola completely wiped out one year. That was 60 acres in an exceptional year when there was actually some money in canola and it was worth about $350 an acre.
That is the kind of hit farmers simply cannot afford to take. If we multiply that by tens of thousands of farmers, in a bad year it is probably well beyond the $200 million figure, although I cannot vouch for the complete accuracy of that figure. It is our best estimate. Nobody has done the study to determine it.
[Translation]
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to welcome you and all hon. members back to Parliament.
[English]
I thank the member for Vegreville—Wainwright for bringing this forward.
I listened to the member for Wild Rose, who questioned whether government cares about this or understands the plight of farmers and the difficulty with the Richardson's ground squirrel. There is no doubt everybody understands that. Everybody wants to find a solution. The member for Vegreville—Wainwright proposes a 2% solution of strychnine. The government is working with the provincial government and the industry to find a 100% solution to this problem.
The member has requested that the government make available directly to farmers a 2% liquid concentrate of the pest control product strychnine, which farmers would mix with seed to produce a strychnine bait to control ground squirrels. The end result would be a bait containing approximately 0.4% strychnine.
However, ready-to-use 0.4% strychnine baits, which are effective and safer to use, are already available to Canadian farmers for that very purpose. In fact, since 2005, fresh, ready-to-use 0.4% strychnine bait products have also been commercially available in Canada. These recent registrations now provide farmers with the means by which they can readily access moist strychnine baits, comparable in freshness to bait mixed directly from concentrate.
[Translation]
The hon. member's motion relates to restrictions put in place in 1992 by Agriculture Canada, then Canada's regulatory body for pesticides. The restrictions limited the availability of strychnine products for ground squirrel control to ready-to-use bait formulations limited at up to 0.4% strychnine.
The ready-to-use baits provided for concentrations of strychnine that were very similar to, or sometimes even greater than, those found before 1993, in baits prepared by mixing the concentrated 2% strychnine solution with farm-available grain. Furthermore, the ready-to-use products were, and are still considered to be, safer to use.
(1130)
[English]
I would like to remind the hon. member that the government moved to restrict the availability of strychnine liquid concentrate only to protect Canadians' health and safety and their environment from possible serious adverse effects of this dangerous poison. Strychnine has a very high level of acute toxicity and has been and continues to be implicated in poisonings of non-target animals, including dogs and wildlife.
Canada is not alone in having taken action on strychnine. All above ground use of strychnine has been prohibited in the United States since 1988. Furthermore, it is illegal to use strychnine for pest control in most European countries and it is prohibited by the Bern convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats.
The Richardson's ground squirrel has been considered to be the major mammalian pest impacting croplands, pastures and rangelands in western Canada over the past several decades, for which the control option of choice has remained strychnine treated food baits.
[Translation]
In the years following the restriction of strychnine products in 1992, issues were raised regarding the effectiveness of the ready-to-use strychnine baits for ground squirrel control. The government acted swiftly and responsibly to address farmers' concerns.
For several years from 1997 onward, Health Canada conducted an extensive analysis of the ready-to-use products marketed at that time to confirm that they met the level of strychnine guaranteed on the product label by the manufacturer, and as required by Health Canada, that is, 0.4% strychnine.
[English]
During the years 2001, 2002 and 2003, as was mentioned by the member from Vegreville—Wainwright, because provincial authorities were concerned with severe ground squirrel infestation in certain areas of Saskatchewan and Alberta, they requested and received emergency registrations of a concentrated 2% strychnine product to allow for the preparation of freshly baited 0.4% strychnine bait.
This emergency registration program allowed the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, under very strict provisions, to freshly prepare and distribute moist strychnine bait formulated from 2% liquid strychnine concentrate, providing farmers in those provinces with access to fresh bait for on farm use to control Richardson's ground squirrel.
These freshly prepared baits, which have been demonstrated to be more acceptable to ground squirrels, resulted in enhanced control.
I want to be perfectly clear that the recently registered fresh, ready to use 0.4% strychnine bait products provide farmers with the same type of product at the same concentration of strychnine that was used under the emergency registration programs of 2001, 2002 and 2003.
However, Health Canada has not restricted its involvement in the ground squirrel control program to pesticide issues. Risk reduction plays an important role in modern pesticide regulation and while the restriction of the use of certain pesticides is a means toward that end, so is the development of integrated pest management strategies to research alternative methods of control.
To that end, Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency has been facilitating an integrated pest management program in conjunction with the western provinces to address ground squirrel infestations.
Parties participating in the integrated pest management program include representatives from all levels of government, non-government organizations and the pesticide industry. This is the 100% solution.
Part of the objective of this program is to provide the use of alternatives to strychnine, including non-chemical methods of control, and the use of registered pest control products containing active ingredients other than strychnine.
Although in its early stages, the integrated pest management group has already presented preliminary research findings to Health Canada, which could eventually result in improved label directions that would increase pest control product efficiency without incurring additional environmental effects.
Another major activity in which Health Canada has been involved is the re-evaluation of strychnine, as was mentioned by the member. This falls under Health Canada's pesticide re-evaluation program, which is designed to ensure that the continuing acceptability of all pesticides registered in Canada before 1995 is examined using current scientific approaches.
Health Canada has released its findings on the strychnine re-evaluation and has invited comments from interested parties before finalizing its decision. I would join the member in inviting all concerned to participate in those discussions.
In closing, I want to assure the hon. member for Vegreville—Wainwright that Canadian farmers do have access to strychnine products that are equivalent to those shown to be effective under severe ground squirrel infestations.
Health Canada has and will continue to listen to, and act on the concerns of farmers. Health Canada will continue to explore Richardson's ground squirrel control strategies through an integrated pest management program, so that Canadian farmers will not be left without the tools they need to pursue their livelihood in a safe and practical manner.
(1135)
Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask for unanimous consent to have a question period with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health who has just spoken. Some of the information I heard requires a follow-up with questions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to open this new session on behalf of my party, the Bloc Québécois, especially since I have been appointed the Bloc Québécois critic for agriculture and agri-food.
I want to emphasize the work done my predecessors in this position, who have done an outstanding job, and particularly the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for standing up for Quebec farm producers. I am convinced that we will be building on all the work that has been done so far. Farm producers in Quebec can be sure that I will always stand steadfastly behind them in their battles.
I am pleased to take part in this debate on Motion No. 253 put forward by the hon. member for Vegreville—Wainwright. I know that he has been fighting for this for a number of years. I certainly understand where he is coming from.
I shall not list every name these creatures go by, because there are many. Suffice it to say that these are rodents that can cause various kinds of damage, which the hon. member estimated at $200 million. Millions of dollars in damage has indeed been caused to crops, in Alberta and Saskatchewan in particular.
These rodents would be harmless if there were not so many of them. Wherever they proliferate, there are serious problems. The member who introduced the motion said this earlier. I clearly understand his reasons in this regard.
We know that these rodents eat any vegetation they find underground. For example, they destroy fruit trees, tubers, and garden bulbs. Furthermore, when these rodents dig holes, they damage machinery. In digging, they create small mounds of earth and damage can occur when machinery travels over these mounds.
These animals also dig burrows in dikes, and this is dangerous for flood-containment structures. All of this to say that even such a small animal can cause major damage.
So I understand the battle the member has been waging since the most effective product to date, 2% liquid strychnine, was banned in Canada. In passing, this product has also been banned in the United States and a number of European countries. The latter concluded that the danger within their jurisdiction was too great to permit the use of this product. Canada reached this same conclusion several years ago.
Why has this specific product been banned? It is highly toxic to animals, as well as to humans. Fans of detective novels will recall that it was often referred to by Agatha Christie as a poison used to eliminate one's enemies. In fact, it is extremely toxic to humans.
In fact, 2% strychnine concentrate is an acute and dangerous poison. It causes death in humans, as I said. Allowing free access to this product would be irresponsible, given its level of toxicity and possible use by criminals. Obviously, I am not talking here about farmers, but about people who might decide to use it to commit some type of crime.
There are alternative products. We also heard about them during the first two speeches. Since banning strychnine, the government, in collaboration with producers and the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan, has tried to develop a pest control strategy with regard to this rodent, also known as Richardson's ground squirrel.
These governments currently support the marketing of fresh baits made from strychnine but mixed to 0.4%. Admittedly, this mix is less effective than the 2% concentrate. That goes without saying.
It is important to conduct studies on alternative products. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, has re-evaluated the available data on strychnine and is consulting stakeholders on its use as we speak.
This was mentioned earlier. I have here a document called “Re-evaluation of Strychnine, Proposed Acceptability for Continuing Registration”. It includes information on participating in this 60-day consultation for anyone who so desires. I invite all interested farmers and stakeholders to take part in this consultation, which is another step toward finding a lasting and tangible solution.
(1140)
As I was saying, it starts today and will last two months. I hope a solution will be found that satisfies farmers and does not put public health at risk.
Health Canada, through PMRA, must ensure that pesticides do not pose any unacceptable risks to humans, other animals or the environment. However, farmers cannot simply be left to deal with this scourge on their own. In the summer of 2001, problems caused by ground squirrels in some areas of Alberta and Saskatchewan were so bad that the governments of those provinces asked for and received permission from PMRA to use 2% strychnine solution again.
This permission was granted for that season only since there was a truly terrible proliferation of rodents. The agency was quite careful about the availability and use of the product and that is where there is a problem with the hon. member's motion. He is asking only that the product be put back on the market as it was before without any restriction. Therein lies the risk.
In 2001, only agricultural officers in Alberta and pest control specialists in Saskatchewan were allowed to distribute the product. It was therefore highly and very stringently regulated. Producers and farmers were, however, able to use the product which is, as I have said, the most effective one we have at this time to control the spread of rodents and the serious damage they cause. Things would have been worse if the old product had been used.
At this point in time, the government must again authorize the use of the product, but within very stringent standards. It must allow an exception of this kind every time the situation gets out of control, until such time as effective alternative solutions are found.
We cannot, however, be in favour of the hon. member's motion as presented for the reasons I have just given. The motion is too broad and lacks any framework or directive on specific use for the eradication of rodents, for example the amount allowed for baiting traps or whether it is to be used underground only.
As we know, above ground use of a 2% solution was allowed for 20 years, from 1968 to 1988. People then came to realize that birds could eat it and die from it. When the decision for underground use was made, that was already less dangerous, but the intent is still to limit widespread distribution of this product.
We cannot vote in favour of this motion , but we do call upon the government to complete its consultations and studies as promptly as possible so that producers will at last have access to an effective solution that will also protect health and the environment.
I hope as many people as possible will take part in the PMRA reassessment of this product. I hope it will not take years for producers coping with this problem to be able to obtain a product that is as safe as possible for human health —although it is of course still a poison—while still allowing them to halt the spread of these very destructive rodents.
(1145)
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this place at the first moment we are back to do the business of Canadians. Mr. Speaker, I want to wish you well in your duties of presiding over the House. I hope that you enjoyed a productive summer and had some rest and relaxation over the past little while. Now we are here to get the work of Canadians done. We are here to get right down to business, to talk about pressing issues for all Canadians.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, you will know that there are all kinds of issues we need to talk about that are not on the government's agenda. We have to talk about the question of the CBC and the lockout that is approaching its eighth week. We have to talk about softwood lumber and the failure of the government to respond to the United States. We have to talk about the situation facing farmers. We have to talk about the privatization of health care. I look forward to a session that will deal with all of those issues that threaten the very survival of the country as we know it.
Now I will focus on the private member's motion by the member for Vegreville—Wainwright. The motion deals with a nuisance problem in our farming communities, that being the presence of gophers, or as we call them in Manitoba, the prairie dog. That animal is actually part of our heritage and part of our natural environment. Certainly it is one which we celebrate in terms of our history and prairie culture. I do acknowledge, as the member who brought forward the motion said, that there is a problem in the overpopulation of gophers. It is to the point where farmers are faced with some real difficulties and very serious challenges.
I do agree with the spirit of the member's motion which is that we ought to do something finally about the problem in a real and an environmentally sensitive way. That is where I believe we part company. The member is suggesting that we actually increase the strength of the strychnine solution as a way to rid our farmlands of this rodent, the Richardson's ground squirrel and/or pocket gopher.
The real debate today is what can be done about the problem in a way that is environmentally safe and is not a threat to Canadians' health and well-being while still being responsible to the farmers who have a serious problem. I suggest to the member that we should put our efforts into holding the government to account for doing nothing in the last 10 years when this problem became so apparent. The onus ought to be on the government not to simply stand in this place through a private member and suggest that there is something wrong with the member's motion without providing an alternative solution to a problem that has been identified for over a decade.
I want in particular to refer to the debate we had in the House way back in 2001 on the very same topic. The very same issues were raised and the same solution was provided. In that space of four years there has been ample time for the government to come forward with a plan to deal with the problem. Have we heard anything? Has there been any conscious effort by the government to deal with this issue sensibly and with sensitivity to the environment, with concern for Canadians' health and well-being? Unfortunately the answer is no. There has been nothing from the government. We are left once again debating a proposition that is not acceptable to anyone. It is not acceptable to farmers, not acceptable to the environment and not acceptable to Canadians who are worried about their health.
(1150)
It is not acceptable because we are talking about a very serious, dangerous pesticide. We are talking about something that is deadly. We are talking about a substance that has been used in the past for suicides and for killing neighbourhood dogs.
The member for Vegreville mentioned this and acknowledged the problems and said that there were ways to get around them. I do not think anyone in the House or Canadians understand how we could get around that kind of problem. This substance gets into the grains, the ground and our environment. It is very hard to prevent it from coming into contact with other animals and human beings.
Indiscriminate use can result in wildlife deaths, including that of raptors, the main natural predator of ground squirrels and gophers. It is a time sensitive, labour intensive solution. It is only effective in early spring before weeds sprout. Once it is used, the area must be monitored daily for carcasses which then must be buried to prevent accidental poisoning. Needless to say, this is not a solution. We have to defeat it. We must put the onus back on the government to come up with a solution that works.
I want to refer to some comments made by my colleague, Dick Proctor, back in 2001 when this matter was last debated in the House. Dick Proctor was the member for Palliser, a fine member of the House. He was a member who was devoted to working on behalf of farmers and doing what was in the best interests of his constituents. He spoke out repeatedly on behalf of the public interest and public policies that served the public good. He said:
|
We too have some environmental concerns that were indicated by the government spokesperson. We are concerned about what has happened to the population of swift foxes and bald eagles over the past decade as well as burrowing owls which are very important in the Moose Jaw area. There was a story in the local newspaper within the last month about how the number of pairs of burrowing owls had declined rapidly in recent years. Dog poisonings have also been mentioned. In the volume of work in this area a couple of suicides were reported. All of these seem to be impacted by the use of strychnine. |
Those comments were made by someone, a former member who served with integrity, a hardworking individual who was in contact with his community and the farmers, who knew the impact of the use of strychnine on the environment. His comments must be taken seriously.
My good friend Dick Proctor also went on to chastise the government for not doing its part:
|
I remind members, in the words of David Suzuki, that the human race is the most predatory animal in the history of the world. We have a phobia about eliminating anything and everything that gets in our way. Some day that is going to come back and cost us in a very large way. |
|
This is a problem and I do not want to minimize it, but I think we need to and should look at alternatives. The issue has been around for 10 years. The government has absolutely failed to develop alternatives that would work as a replacement for liquid strychnine. |
Some reports suggest that the 0.4% solution is effective. This might have been mentioned by some of my colleagues that it should on its own be offered as the solution. The fact that we are having the debate today and the fact that members who represent rural constituencies and farmers across the country from the prairies, tell us that there is a problem, that the 0.4% solution has not worked. In this debate we have to say the government solution is not an answer. To fall back on the 0.4% strength of strychnine is not a solution. There have to be alternatives.
The Conservative opposition's idea of increasing levels, of strengthening the potency of this poisonous and terrible pesticide is not the solution.
We are left with trying to find the appropriate solution. We have to defeat this motion and convince the government to come back to the House with a positive alternative.
(1155)
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on the first day back after a summer recess to address an issue that a lot of people think should not be in the top 10 issues in the House. It certainly speaks to the fact that, as the NDP member just said, the Liberal government has basically stood aside and done nothing for the last 12 years that this has been an issue. That raises the point we need to get to.
Let us bring a bit of reality into the debate. We heard from members of the other three parties, with the exception of my colleague from Vegreville—Wainwright who has taken a third crack at this issue and I welcome his intervention on that. It is a huge issue in his riding and mine, which parallel each other in western Canada. It is becoming worse because of the government inaction on this file. It is another strike against agriculture.
The magic coefficient that permeates all of this is a little agency under Health Canada that reports to Agriculture Canada but basically does nothing for either one, called the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. When people from that agency come before our committees, they tap dance, shift aside and blame somebody else; it is never their fault. But it is their lack of attention to files such as these that this issue has been dragging on for 12 years and there is nothing to take the place of strychnine. That is why we are asking for strychnine to be reinstated at this point until that agency does find something that is as effective and as accessible as that should be.
The cause and effect is the Liberal government and its PMRA that it does not keep to task. It has been before the agriculture committee a number of times and I have walked away shaking my head. There are so many issues it needs to be tuned into, to be interventionist on and it is not. That agency basically is not doing its job and is not earning its pay at this point, in my estimation.
Several other issues fall under the purview of the PMRA. One is generic glyphosate along with the strychnine. Another one is ivermectin which agricultural producers are running across the border to pick up. They are going to be penalized for doing that. They will not be allowed to do that even under the own use certificate that the government has allowed the PMRA to piecemeal out some solutions.
There is a general malaise in that agency. It needs a good boot to get it up and running. It is not a budgetary problem; it is a science problem. It seems to ignore or skirt around the sound science that attaches itself to all of these different issues.
A case in point, today it was talking about the re-evaluation of strychnine. The PMRA is doing another study which is in the comment period. If the agency really wants to get comments that are pertinent, it should go outside the Ottawa bubble and talk to the actual end users, the farmers and ranchers who have been using this product for years. There has not been a significant problem. There has been some criminality, but that is under a whole other cause. That is under criminal use and criminal intent. Those people need to be punished to the full extent of the law, and rightly so.
The ordinary farmers and producers have a twofold problem with the way they are allowed to go after the Richardson's ground squirrel. They like to use that fancy name because everybody gets this warm, fuzzy idea of a squirrel, that they are cute and cuddly. Let us not forget that these are rodents. These are closer to the rat family. They burrow in the ground, chew up vegetation and create a tremendous amount of havoc in farming country. The number of $200 million annually in losses and costs has been tossed around. That is probably a very conservative number. We could probably multiply that by three or four times.
It is compounding now in that we have had a couple of years of drought. We are back into rain this year, more than we need. We have some major concerns with not being able to use best farming practices that the government insists we use and not having access in this case to the chemicals and poisons that we need.
The parliamentary secretary to the agriculture minister said that even the U.S. has banned above ground use of strychnine. That is fine. We do not use it above ground. The bait goes in the hole, underground. It is not accessible to any other animals unless there is criminal intent and someone wants to poison the neighbour's dog or bait a deer to get coyotes and so on, and that is a no-no. That is already listed in the Criminal Code. Let us not confuse the two. Let us not use that as an issue to keep the strychnine away from farmers.
The issue is a matter of concentration of the poison, freshness and the timeliness in being able to use it. Right now we have it under special permit. People have to run to their municipal offices, on certain days only, when it will be mixed for them. They have to bring in their bait, barley, grain or whatever is going to be used, and it is mixed. Then they rush home and bait the holes. The problem is it takes time to do that. A lot of farmers get up early in the morning to do it, or do it when the machinery breaks down, or on a rainy day, or something like that.
(1200)
That compounds the problem with timeliness when they have to drive to the municipal office, which in many cases could be 40 or 50 kilometres away. They have to stand in line to get the bait mixed because everyone else has to go on the same day. Then when they get home, they want to bait those holes as quickly as they can with the fresh baited poison.
Therefore, the problem with having it mixed in Toronto is the freight problem. The type of bait that is used is usually screenings and gophers will not go for that. They have a persnickety pallet. They have a choice of hundreds of acres of fresh green stuff or stale old bread. Gophers are connoisseurs. They will get into the fresh grass and gorge themselves. We must have freshness, timeliness and the concentration of the bait. Those are the three things that need to be addressed by the PMRA and its Liberal taskmasters who sit on the other side of the House.
None of the other parties seem to want to step up and say that we have to maintain what we have under best farming practices until or if and when the government does come up with something newer. It has not. There is all this talk about two other products out there but no one has access to them. Again the timeliness, the freshness and availability are the major concerns with this problem.
One adult gopher can dig 50 holes in a season. Those are a lot of holes that cattle and horses step in. It makes a tremendous mess, plus the damage it does to the surrounding green space. There are a billion and a half acres under attack annually by pocket gophers, half of it in green space and the other half in pasture land. That is a tremendous amount of forage and fodder that goes to waste and does not go into the food supply. Canadians demand a fresh, secure and sustainable food supply and it is all borne on the backs of producers. A billion and half acres are under attack and an increasing livestock herd, almost 20% higher than normal, has to be sustained on fewer acres because of the gopher problem. The government has been complaisant for the last 12 years and complicit in the PMRA not getting the job done. We have a major a problem.
We have people going out and shooting gophers. On a corner section of land of 160 acres in my riding one can go out and shoot 2,000 gophers in an afternoon and not get anywhere near all of them. It is that type of problem we are seeing. Gophers multiply like rats. They have a couple of births a year. The ones born in the spring are having young ones by the fall.
It is a galloping problem. The government has to address the problem, not talk about studies again. The member for Mississauga South talked about not doing this because it was against something. If one gopher on his front lawn chewed 50 holes in a season, he would probably be a little more concerned. That is the type of infestation we have in western Canada.
There was much talk about the 0.4% being adequate. If we talk by strength, it is not. If we talk by volume, and the Liberals hide behind the fact that when it is mixed it amounts to 0.4%, years ago the ideal was 5%. We did not have huge problems at that time. We did not have any problems with 2%. There are no sound scientific studies done. It is all guesswork and knee-jerk environmental reactions. We need to be cognizant of the fact that there could be and may be some damage, but we have to control that. There are many other issues that we need to control as well and we see study after study but no movement on that.
Saskatchewan has a real problem since the federal government has curtailed a wildlife damage compensation under crop insurance. The member for Vegreville—Wainwright talked about 60 acres of canola at $350 to $400 an acre gone missing. It is not even covered any more. If we complain about the problem, we are told there will be a strychnine shipment coming in three months. That is not adequate.
This is a timely bill with the study going on in PMRA and the comment period. The third time will be the charm. Farmers and ranchers, especially in western Canada, are looking for this type of leadership on these issues. We are happy to bring that for them. A new Conservative government would make sure that issues such as these would addressed and that the PMRA would get back to doing the job it should be doing.
(1205)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Criminal Code
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of Justice) moved that Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here at the opening of this session of Parliament to participate in the debate on Bill C-49, an act to amend the Criminal Code, trafficking in persons.
[Translation]
Trafficking in persons is sometimes described as the new global slave trade—no country has been left untouched by this terrible scourge. In a recently released report, May 11, 2005, by the International Labour Organization, it is estimated that the total number of people who are in situations of forced labour as a result of human trafficking is at least 2.45 million people around the world.
Who are the primary victims? Women and children. UNICEF estimates that 1.2 million children are trafficked around the world each year.
[English]
When we hear numbers like this we get a better appreciation of both the magnitude and urgency of strengthening domestic and international measures to combat human trafficking. We must ensure that we have the best response possible to a crime that is such a horrible violation of human rights, a crime that disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable in our society.
Bill C-49 does that. It is undoubtedly an important step toward strengthening our ability to protect the vulnerable, an ongoing priority for the government, and it reflects the government's commitment to ensure that Canada's legal framework clearly recognizes and strongly denounces and deters human trafficking.
[Translation]
It does this by proposing the creation of three new indictable offences to better address human trafficking—in whatever form it may manifest itself. The main offence of “trafficking in persons” would prohibit anyone from engaging in specified acts, such as recruiting, transporting, harbouring or controlling the movements of another person for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of that person. This offence is punishable by up to life imprisonment reflecting its severity and its harmful consequences to its victims and Canadian society.
Second, Bill C-49 proposes to deter those who seek to profit from the exploitation of others by making it an offence to receive a financial or material benefit knowing that it results from the trafficking of persons. This offence is punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment.
Third, Bill C-49 proposes to prohibit the withholding or destroying of travel or identity documents in order to commit or facilitate the trafficking of persons. This offence is punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment.
(1210)
[English]
Human trafficking is all about the exploitation of its victims. The very thought of being denied one's right to life, liberty and security of the person and to being treated as a commodity to be bought, sold and used for whatever purpose is unimaginable and yet it is the reality for so many.
Bill C-49 recognizes this exploitation in a very real and concrete way and would make exploitation a key element of the offence. As defined by Bill C-49, exploitation means causing people to provide labour or services, such as sexual services, by engaging in conduct that could reasonably be expected to cause those people to fear for their safety or that of someone known to them. It also could mean removing a human organ or tissue from victims through the use of force or deception.
Bill C-49 would strengthen Canada's legal framework by building upon the existing domestic and international responses to human trafficking.
There are many international instruments that address human trafficking, but the most recent one is the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and its supplemental protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially woman and children, which offers a widely accepted international framework for addressing the issue. Bill C-49 more clearly reflects this framework. In keeping with this framework, Canada's approach, as reflected in Bill C-49, focuses on the prevention of trafficking and the protection of its victims and the prosecution of the offenders.
The proposed reforms in Bill C-49 send a very clear message to those who seek to exploit the most vulnerable members of society through this form of criminal conduct will be brought to justice.
Bill C-49 would strengthen our current responses to trafficking by building upon existing provisions of the Criminal Code that address trafficking related conduct and would complement the provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that seek to safeguard Canada's border against human trafficking and human smuggling. The new criminal offences proposed by Bill C-49, together with the existing legal framework, will provide criminal justice personnel with a significantly enhanced ability to ensure that the offence charged is the one that best responds to the facts of the specific trafficking case.
The government is also addressing human trafficking through other non-legislative measures, a reflection of the reality that an effective response to such a problem requires not only a strong legal framework, but also multi-sectoral collaboration to enhance our awareness and understanding of the problem and to facilitate effective and meaningful implementation of targeted responses.
The government recently has undertaken numerous measures for this end. For example, a website on trafficking in persons was launched in April 2004 and can be accessed through the Department of Justice Canada website. The website provides useful information for the public, describing the problem and related links.
(1215)
[Translation]
Public education and awareness is being fostered through the development and broad dissemination within Canada and to Canadian embassies of a poster and an information pamphlet—available in 14 languages—to help prevent human trafficking victimization.
[English]
Professional training and education about human trafficking and enforcement related issues is underway and began with a training seminar in March 2004, co-hosted by the Department of Justice Canada and the International Organization for Migration. A similar seminar was held in May 2005 in Vancouver, hosted by the RCMP.
I support Bill C-49 because it is an important step toward strengthening Canada's ability to prevent human trafficking, to better protect its victims and to hold traffickers accountable. I hope all members of the House will be able to support the expeditious passage of this important legislation.
Mr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like some insight into how big a problem trafficking is. Is it a phenomenon that we have in Canada or is it a phenomenon restricted to developing countries? How big a problem is it for Canada?
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very good point. Because of the very clandestine nature of the activity of human trafficking, it is impossible to get a full appreciation of the scope and impact of the problem, both internationally and at the domestic level.
However, as I mentioned in the speech, a couple of estimates that have been provided seem to give us some understanding of how broad-reaching this problem is in an international context.
According to the figures that I have, the United Nations estimates that over 700,000 people are trafficked each year. In accordance with the International Labour Organization, the estimates are that at any given point in time there will be just under 2.5 million people who are in forced labour situations as a result of human trafficking. Clearly, no country is immune from this and yet it is such a fundamental violation of human rights.
I do not think we can say that within Canada we have resolved the problem at this point which is why we want to bring forward for domestic purposes, as well as to work internationally, this legislation to deal with the problem that we know exists. We think it is fundamental. We think we have to do everything possible to give our authorities the ability to track down, properly charge and convict these individuals who would deem themselves appropriate to participate in this type of activity.
Second, the legislation would target those who would try to profit from this type of activity.
When we start hearing about some of the aspects in human trafficking, especially when it gets into not only the sex trade but also into human organs removal, the whole idea and concept of human trafficking and its results is something that is so abhorrent to us as a society and so against everything that we as Canadians believe in, I believe it is important that the legislation be adopted as quickly as possible to assist our officials in being able to bring about enforcement, prosecution and sentencing of these individuals.
(1220)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, about a year ago I had an opportunity to attend a conference sponsored by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. At that conference we received an excellent magazine produced by the United States on this very subject matter. It contained maps showing exactly where these incidents occur and the frequency. Just to look at the research that has been done shows us how serious a problem this has been over all these years. I am very pleased that this legislation has been brought forward.
I would like to ask the member about the sentencing. Sentencing issues have come up. I understand that under Bill C-49 those who are guilty of exploitation could suffer imprisonment for life. Where there is financial gain it could be 10 years. Where there is withholding or destroying of documents it could be up to five years.
I have often wondered whether the sentencing regime that we have related to some of these abhorrent crimes that are committed, like child pornography, child abuse and trafficking in persons, that we need to make absolutely sure that the courts recognize that the maximum sentences are not to be ignored. However if they are being ignored maybe the member could tell us what kind of experience they have had with regard to those matters where something like mandatory minimum sentencing might be an appropriate response to these abhorrent crimes.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: Mr. Speaker, the member does raise an interesting perspective to the issue at hand. When we look at it, we see first and foremost what we would refer to as the three p's of this process: the prevention of trafficking, the protection of victims and the prosecution of traffickers.
However, as I was trying to point out in my thoughts today, what we also need to do is educate the public because for the most part the public simply does not recognize that this exists. Our judicial system is part of the public and, quite frankly, they need to be equally informed of the nature of the problem that we have and the response that we believe is appropriate.
How we as a Parliament send the message to those who work within the justice system is usually through defining the nature of the penalty and, in particular, when we talk about the maximum of life imprisonment being one of the utmost of penalties that one can give within our system, we are bringing the message home that when judges examine all of the facts before them they take into consideration the way Parliament views this type of activity.
As I have mentioned before, it is fundamental to all of us that human rights protection, in particular the security of person, is absolutely essential. As we look at the broader picture throughout the world, we will do everything that we possibly can on an international stage, through the UN and through the various protocols that we have adopted, to work together with the international community to achieve the goals of reducing as much as possible this type of activity and if possible to try to eliminate this type of activity.
However on the domestic level this particular bill is extremely important because there are issues where within our own country we need to have the appropriate penalties and the appropriate charges that can be laid and the bill would create those offences that are appropriate. I believe that this would be helpful in bringing forward to the attention of all those involved within the justice system that this is an area where we no longer wish to have this carried out within our country, and that we want these penalties to be meted out appropriately and to bring this matter to an end.
(1225)
Mr. Marc Godbout (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I surely would like to applaud the introduction of this important legislation. It has been long awaited by people throughout Canada. As was explained to me about the protocol with the United Nations on child trafficking, this must be negotiated and we have to come to an agreement with the provinces.
In his initial consultations with the provinces could the parliamentary secretary tell us what the provinces' reactions were to the introduction of such legislation? I am sure they all agreed with it but how would it be implemented once it is approved by the House?
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that everyone within this country, both at the provincial and federal levels, mutually understand that this is something on which everyone would work together and try to implement. This of course is within the criminal jurisdiction of the federal government. We are trying to set out the appropriate type of offence that we believe can be properly prosecuted and that there will be convictions within the provincial sphere of the administration of justice. I think this would actually help the provinces carry out their duties because it is more precise and hopefully should lead to convictions that will be relatively easily obtained because of the nature of how we have described the offence within the bill itself.
I believe that there will be no problem with working with the provinces. I believe that this is a process that will be effective and that as and when we come up against these individual cases, we will find the provinces will be able to achieve their goals of effective prosecutions.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House and to address Bill C-49 as the justice critic for the official opposition.
The official opposition agrees that trafficking in persons is a modern form of slavery and is a serious human rights violation. The United Nations has reported that human trafficking is the fastest growing form of transnational organized crime. It is little wonder. Local organized crime organizations are drawn to the industry because of the enormous profit potential and the relatively low risk of detection. This is a booming industry that is run by powerful, multinational criminal networks who are well funded, well organized and extremely adaptable to changing technologies.
The United Nations estimates that there are over 700,000 people who are trafficked annually on a worldwide basis, 80% of these people being women and 50% of them being children. Revenues generated globally from trafficking are estimated at approximately $10 billion American. Most victims are forced into commercial sexual exploitation as well as involuntary servitude or debt bondage. Others may be exploited through hard labour in some countries. Children are trafficked to work as soldiers.
Trafficked persons are often duped into their new profession, deceived with seemingly legitimate employment contracts abroad or indeed marriages abroad. Others are simply abducted. Victims are often subjected to physical, sexual and emotional abuse.
Although there are no hard statistics because of the difficulty in tracing these crimes, in Canada the RCMP estimates that approximately 600 foreign women and girls are forced into the Canadian sex trade every year. That number of course is increased when one includes the number of individuals forced into other kinds of labour.
While Canada has a relatively good record on the international stage in terms of efforts to stem the incidence of human trafficking, there is still much work to do. In June of this year the United States state department reported that British Columbia had become an attractive hub for east Asian human traffickers who smuggle South Korean women through Canada to the United States, in large part attributable to the fact that South Koreans do not need a visa to enter Canada.
While trafficking is clearly a global problem that does not respect borders, enforcement is for the most part a domestic issue and Canada needs to take a much more active role in terms of ensuring that this international plague is not increased within our own borders.
I would like to quote Canadian journalist, Victor Malarek, who has written and researched extensively on the global sex trade. He said, “If a country is to be judged on how it deals with this scourge, that judgment must be based on the action it takes to eradicate it. The only thing that will send these thugs scurrying back into the rat holes is the full force of the law -- unwavering prosecution, heavy prison time and confiscation of all profits amassed on the backs of these women”.
I could not agree more with Mr. Malarek. I think though that one then has to measure his observations, the studies that people like Mr. Malarek and other agencies have done and compare them to what Bill C-49 would do.
What the bill would do in many respects is nothing new. It simply would codify in a more succinct fashion existing laws. Yes, it does focus on the issue of human trafficking, but there already are many provisions in the Criminal Code that are applicable to these particular crimes.
Currently the Canadian Criminal Code contains no provision to prohibit specifically trafficking in persons. although in the 2002 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act it did bring in some measures to combat this crime. Specifically, section 118 of the act prohibits bringing anyone into Canada by means of abduction, fraud, deception or use or threat of force, or coercion. Again, many of these laws already exist. Bill C-49 would simply codify and focus the law in this respect.
(1230)
Bill C-49 goes beyond the current focus on immigration. The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code in Bill C-49 create three new indictable offences to specifically address human trafficking. The first contains the global prohibition on trafficking in persons. The second prohibits a person from benefiting economically from trafficking. The third prohibits the withholding or destroying of identity, immigration or travel documents to facilitate trafficking in persons.
In addition, the legislation also ensures that trafficking may form the basis of a warrant to intercept private communications and to take bodily samples for DNA analysis and permits inclusion of the offender in the sex offender registry.
Simply saying that we will permit the DNA taking or the inclusion in the sex offender registry is not enough. We know that there are numerous loopholes in both the DNA legislation and the sex offender registry. For example, the DNA legislation pales in comparison to the efforts that the British have taken. In Great Britain there are about 60 million people. There are approximately 3 million people in the British DNA database. In Canada, with a population of 30 million people, approximately half, we only have a database of about 70,000 people. Is it because we are so much more law abiding? I would suggest not.
In fact, what is the true case is that over 50% of even the most serious individuals convicted of offences are not being required to provide DNA samples. Quite frankly, this is a deplorable state of affairs. We cannot blame this particular legislation, but we can blame the government for refusing to put in the kinds of steps that are necessary to make our DNA legislation as effective as American or British legislation.
Rosalind Prober from Beyond Borders recently contacted me to talk about the problems with the sex offender registry. If people go to the Beyond Borders website, they will see many of the sex offender loopholes contained in it.
One of the things our government allows is for convicted sex offenders who are on our sex offender registry to leave the country for up to 14 days without giving any notice. These individuals, of course, are going to other countries exploiting youth and women and our government does absolutely nothing. That is only one small example of where the government could actually be taking steps to prevent the abuse of people in other countries by Canadian citizens and yet it simply refuses to do it.
What is important to note as well is that Bill C-49 also expands the ability to seek restitution to victims who are subjected to bodily or psychological harm. I want to talk about how one collects restitution in the Canadian justice system. It used to be that prior to the 1996 amendments to the legislation that the court would enforce restitution. Now, thanks to a bill the Liberals brought in, if one wants to enforce a restitution order, one has to go to court which issues a judgment. The victim gets a judgment. Instead of the court enforcing it through the criminal process, the victim gets a judgment which he or she has to enforce it through the civil process.
There is the spectre of immigrants or other people who may not be as knowledgeable of our legal system or are intimidated by our legal system asking gang members for restitution. Can anyone imagine the ludicrous nature of this kind of law where we put the burden on the victim to collect these restitution orders instead of doing it as the courts used to? The courts used to enforce these orders. Saying that we are going to seek restitution and allow the victims to get restitution is absolutely ridiculous.
Can anyone imagine a poor, little old lady from the north end of Winnipeg going up to the Manitoba Warriors trying to collect a restitution order? That is a sample of the ludicrous provisions we have in legislation. They make great sound bites but they do absolutely nothing.
(1235)
The other point is that we have new provisions for maximum sentences. Some are 5 years, some are 10 years and some are life imprisonment. The point we have emphasized over and over again is that when Parliament sends direction to the courts about increasing sentences, the courts are very clear in not following those directions. They simply do not follow them. The courts continue to impose the sentences they have always imposed because they have said that the overall direction from the government is not to send people to prison. Instead of enforcing new sentences, all the courts are going to do is look at the general policies set out in the Criminal Code which basically say to divert criminals from prison.
There are many situations where diversion is a good thing, but we know that in these kinds of situations it is not a good thing. These individuals are entitled to house arrest or conditional sentences as they are called in the Criminal Code.
We could compare sentences in Canada to sentences in Great Britain when individuals are actually convicted there. Members should read Victor Malarek's book in terms of the sentences that are imposed in Great Britain and the United States. The problem is that in Canada we simply do not have any mandatory prison sentences that individuals will face if they are convicted. This particular government is fond of saying that there is no evidence demonstrating that mandatory minimums work.
I will just mention for a moment marijuana grow ops. I spent a lot of time this summer in the lower mainland in British Columbia where there are an estimated 8,000 marijuana grow ops. Two days ago I was on a street of 25 houses where there were seven marijuana grow ops including one meth lab and one MDMA lab. This is an area with 8,000 marijuana grow ops, yet the government says mandatory sentencing does not work.
Whereas Canada has hundreds of cases going through the courts where individuals essentially receive a few thousand dollars in fines for operating multi-million dollar grow ops, in the United States, at the same time, there are three or four actual prosecutions because grow ops simply do not exist there to the extent that they do here in Canada.
The difference is that when individuals get caught in the United States for manufacturing methamphetamine or MDMA or getting involved in grow ops, those individuals will go to jail and will go to jail for hard time. Firefighters and police officers who have to raid these places and expose themselves to dangerous chemicals are protected, never mind the neighbourhoods that are subjected to this horrible abuse. Yet the government keeps on saying mandatory minimum sentences do not work.
We know for sure that the policy of the government of allowing these hardened criminals who are putting poison into our children's veins does not work. They are putting poison into our children's veins and they are getting house arrest. The government says that works, but I beg to differ. The Liberal government is killing our children and it does not seem to care.
This bill is only giving lip service to the concept of stopping those who want to exploit women and children no matter what country they come from. As a Canadian I feel that we have an international obligation to help people from whatever country they come from.
We know that the courts will do absolutely nothing in terms of deterring this unless the message is sent clearly in our Criminal Code that if this is done mandatory prison terms will be served.
There is one other point that I want to quickly make. The people who stand to monetarily gain from this are subjected to lower sentences, not life imprisonment. These are the kingpins who sit in the backrooms. They are protected by layers of criminal activity. They are the ones who collect the money. They are the ones who direct everything, and yet they are the ones who get the lower sentence.
(1240)
Why is it that the government thinks that we should simply catch the people out on the street who are doing the abuse, but leave the criminals who are actually profiting with fewer sentences or lesser sentences when it is so difficult to get these individuals to begin with?
Is this a good thing that we are doing in Parliament today? Yes it is. The bill is a good one, but there are a few basic steps that we could take to make this truly an effective bill that would make a difference.
The first thing we should do is impose mandatory minimum prison sentences for those who want to abduct and exploit women and children in this fashion. Those individuals need to go to jail. It is not enough to say that we are going to leave this up to the courts. It is not enough. Parliament needs to stand up and Parliament needs to give direction in this respect.
I have already mentioned the other points. We must fix the sexual abuse registry, clear up the loopholes, and ensure that those who are convicted for abusing children and women are in fact protected.
Lastly, we have to look at the DNA bill. We took some steps to protect Canadians by improving the DNA bill. The Liberals in the last term wanted to give rapists a free rape or a free murder. We do not agree with that kind of thing. Persons should not have a free sexual assault or a free murder before they get on the DNA registry. That was changed as a direct result of the official opposition standing up and saying that once individuals have been convicted of a murder they should be on the DNA database.
It is not enough to simply say they should also be convicted of a sexual assault or if they have been convicted of a sexual assault, they should also have a murder. It is not enough. If persons are convicted of an indictable offence in this country they should be on that DNA database to give the police the appropriate weapons to ensure that dangerous criminals are off the street.
The government, despite all of its talk refuses to do it, continues to refuse to do it, and is simply putting forward legislation saying that this sends a strong message. Who does it send a strong message to? It does not send a strong message to the courts because the courts are not imposing appropriate sentences. It does not send a strong message to the criminals because they are simply paying fines of a few thousand dollars as a licence to operate and they are back on the streets before the police complete the paperwork.
Who is it sending a strong message to? Is it sending a strong message to the people in our communities who are frightened because of crime? Absolutely not. The only message that it is sending to them is that they are scared to walk out on the streets in the evening. That is the message that the government is sending to the people of Canada in large cities, small towns and in rural Canada.
The opposition is prepared to stand up for Canadians, and protect Canadians and the rights of victims over the rights of criminals that the government consistently wants to protect.
(1245)
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will apologize for my comments and question being slightly peripheral to the bill, but the member's entire speech was peripheral to the bill and I have to comment on what he talked about.
As for the higher-ups getting off scot-free, they do not with our proceeds of crime bill. The suggestion that anyone in Canada would like rapists to have free rein was so outrageous that I could hardly take the member's speech seriously.
With regard to mandatory sentences, which is a useful topic for discussion, there are situations where it has been proven that they neither rehabilitate nor protect. In certain situations we need to have flexibility. I will talk about stronger sentences later because I agree somewhat with the member.
The suggestion that some government policy is the reason that courts do not send someone to jail for certain serious offences is ridiculous. It is a system where the courts are independent of the government. I am sure judges do not listen to such direction, which does not exist.
The member was complaining about marijuana operations. Our bill includes stricter penalties and hopefully the opposition would support that. I agree with the point the member brought up about dangerous chemicals. I am glad we have taken steps on crystal meth. I have made the commitment to our firefighters that we will do anything we can to make sure that they are not in jeopardy with these dangerous chemicals.
I do not agree with mandatory sentences in every case, but I would like other suggestions on how we might get stronger sentencing from the courts. In crimes of violence against women or even ending a woman's life, there can be seemingly light sentences.
This afternoon, as everyone knows, from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. in Room 340S there will be a reception with the families of the peace officers who were slain in Alberta. I hope all members of Parliament who are listening will be able to attend.
Are there situations in that case where stronger sentences could help? I would like the member to comment on other methods of ensuring that sentences are appropriate in cases where they deserve to be appropriate given that the courts need flexibility for different situations, the number of offences, the motivation behind the offence, et cetera.
Mr. Vic Toews: Madam Speaker, when I was with the provincial government we appealed a number of cases where individuals who had been involved in the killing of individuals by motor vehicles and otherwise received conditional sentences. The Supreme Court of Canada clearly said that the direction was from Parliament. The direction came as a result of the 1996 law that the Liberals passed giving conditional sentences not only to non-violent offences, but to violent offences.
It was a policy directive of the Liberal government to tell the courts to stop putting people in jail. That is what the courts are doing. Yes, the courts are independent, but the courts function as a result of the policy direction that Parliament gives them. The policy direction that the government has given the courts is to allow even violent criminals out of jail.
When we deal with the issue of crystal meth, and I support the movement from schedule 3 to schedule 1, from 10 years maximum to life imprisonment, the point is there are still conditional sentences available. The meth dealers who are using the labs and burning houses and causing explosions in urban areas which is dangerous to children, women, men and traffic, will still get conditional sentences because the direction from the government is to provide conditional sentences, house arrest.
If the Liberals want a piece of advice on how to stop that, it would be to abolish conditional sentences. It is not necessary to have conditional sentences because in our Criminal Code we already have suspended sentences. In those cases where individuals do not need to go to jail for one reason or another, suspended sentences are already available. They were always available.
Conditional sentencing is simply an accelerated way of getting people out of jail as quickly as possible and perpetrating the fiction that those individuals are actually serving their time in jail. The courts say they cannot make a distinction between people actually serving their time in jail and people serving their time in house arrest on a conditional sentence. In law it is exactly the same thing. As a Parliament, we are perpetrating a fraud on the people of Canada by allowing that to exist.
One step the government has to take is to eliminate conditional sentences. The second step is for drug dealers and gunmen to have mandatory minimum prison sentences to ensure that they are off the streets.
I support rehabilitation. I support businesses creating job opportunities. I support all kinds of educational and other programs. I support all of those, but children cannot go to school when gunmen and drug dealers are on the streets. Businesses cannot create economic opportunities when gunmen and drug dealers are on the streets.
I met with the business people in Whalley, North Surrey just last week. The entire place looks like Los Angeles. There are abandoned buildings and barbed wire on top of fences. There is no business. People are scared.
There are answers and that is to get the drug men and the gunmen off the streets and get rid of conditional sentences.
(1250)
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Madam Speaker, it certainly sounds like Canada would be a much safer place to live if the Conservative policies were implemented.
In July Karla Homolka was released from prison after serving just 12 years for three murders and a sexual assault. How would the Conservatives' minimum mandatory sentencing have affected the time she served?
On the topic of the national sex offender and DNA registry, would the hon. member please compare the amount of money that has been spent on that registry versus what has been squandered on the long gun registry?
Mr. Vic Toews: Madam Speaker, first, dealing with the Karla Homolka case, this was the case where the Liberals did not want someone who had been convicted of a serious crime in the past to actually go on the DNA registry. It was as a result of the official opposition's work in that respect that that individual now must do that.
I cannot comment on the particular sentence, but what I can say is that the law should prevent returning anyone cold into the community after serving the full sentence, that is, an individual who served his or her whole full sentence and took no steps at rehabilitation and we then turn that person loose. There are some very small preventive steps that can be taken in terms of peace bonds, but they are not particularly effective, as the media reported over the summer.
What I believe should happen in the case of all of these violent offenders is that at the time of sentencing there is that period of incarceration but a mandatory period of parole should be tacked on at the end. Even though the offenders did not rehabilitate themselves during their period of incarceration, at least there would be an ability to supervise.
With respect to the long gun registry, in the downtown streets of Toronto in excess of 40 people have been killed with handguns. The government basically blames the Americans. Those guns might be coming from the United States, but we have an obligation to protect our citizens when those guns are here in Canada. We need to take steps. The $2 billion that has been squandered on the long gun registry has done nothing to prevent long gun violence. Indeed it has not stopped the handgun violence. Mandatory minimum prison sentences are needed for those who are using and carrying handguns illegally.
The government, despite all of its rhetoric and all of the money it has spent on the long gun registry, simply refuses to put those gunmen behind bars. It would prefer to see them under house arrest and back on the streets.
(1255)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-49. I note that the debate has wandered a bit in the past few minutes, and would like to get it back on track to the subject we need to address. This is, in fact, a very important and serious subject, one the House of Commons needs to address and act on as soon as possible, since it affects the most vulnerable members of our society.
This extremely important issue resurfaces from time to time in the media. Unfortunately, likely because of its complexity, it has not so far seemed to hold people's attention long enough to result in any effective action against it. Allow me to explain.
We know that organized networks with connections with major criminal organizations are taking advantage of others' distress, young women for the most part, but children as well. Very often, these vulnerable people are ready to do anything at all to escape the poverty they are living in.
The causes of this situation can vary from one individual to another, but there is a common denominator relating to misery, poverty and secrecy. The preconceived idea people have of trafficking in persons is, more often than not, associated with what used to be called, inappropriately to my mind, white slavery.
As I have just said, certain people, mostly women, get recruited for jobs here, in hopes of a better future and with no idea of the real hell that awaits them.
To take a familiar example: young women from the former soviet republics are approached by fake talent or modelling agencies and leap at the chance for a lucrative career in fashion. Others are approached by agencies claiming to be recruiting au pairs, that is young women to look after Canadian families' children. They end up in the clutches of criminal organizations that take away their passports and have well organized rings forcing them into strip clubs or prostitution.
There are other cases even more disturbing than those. Although we cannot take it upon ourselves to quantify or classify the degree of another's misery, it is important to know that, in this 21st century, some of these women end up as sex slaves. They are subjected to unimaginable abuse and constant threats on their own lives or those of people back in their country of origin, children, brothers and sisters, or parents. They live with the constant fear of something happening to themselves or a loved one.
Trafficking in persons is a very broad issue, and I am deliberately dwelling specifically on this grim aspect of the issue, because it is both more insidious and more common around us than we are really aware. I could just as well have brought up the case of refugees, who are often clandestine immigrants, and who are being exploited by unscrupulous businesses in terms of the basic rights of workers or by individuals who reduce them to the condition of slaves by employing them as domestics.
Such situations exist and they are disturbing, but no efforts appear to have been made so far to denounce them.
That is the context in which we reviewed and addressed Bill C-49 and that is why the Bloc Québécois will be supporting it.
(1300)
Allow me to digress briefly. Until just recently, we MPs got to spend a great deal of time in our respective ridings. I have been asked what bills we would be working on upon returning to the House. Whenever I mentioned the bill dealing with trafficking in persons, people almost always thought that legislation was already in place, that such behaviour was prohibited and that this problem was being addressed. They were very surprised when I told them that they thought wrong and this was going to be on our agenda.
We figure that Bill C-49 will provide police and crown attorneys with better legal tools to fight this trafficking in persons problem, especially where sexual exploitation and forced labour are concerned.
According to official statistics, there are approximately 800 reported cases—and the word “reported” is important—of victims of trafficking in persons in Canada. As one might expect in any such situation, this is probably but the tip of the iceberg.
The environment those involved live in is understandably not exactly conducive to denouncing abuse or effectively seeking resources capable of helping these victims.
We are supporting Bill C-49 essentially because it creates new offences specifically to prevent and denounce trafficking in persons and to hold the perpetrators of the crime responsible.
From a legal standpoint, trafficking in persons is defined as the recruitment, transportation or harbouring of a person for the purpose of exploitation. Although the bill does not mention it explicitly, this offence specifically addresses exploitation in the sex trade and in forced labour.
This bill also legally prohibits, in a broad sense, trafficking in persons for financial gain and the falsification, destruction or alteration of identification documents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of these criminal offences.
Bill C-49 also establishes sentences as serious as imprisonment for life for every person found guilty of trafficking in persons. This maximum sentence of the Canadian system would apply to individuals who, while trafficking in persons, kidnapped, committed an aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against, or caused death to the victim, or if they were an accomplice to these acts.
Every person who receives a financial benefit from the forced labour imposed on the victims of trafficking is liable to imprisonment for a maximum sentence of 10 years. Every person found guilty of possessing travel or identification documents such as a passport belonging to a victim, is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.
As a whole, the bill should be effective in addressing this growing problem and its atrocious social, individual and personal consequences.
The only odd thing is the relative simplicity of the proposed legislation. As I was saying in my introduction, it is a wonder that the government waited so long to tackle this issue head on. The bill includes only eight clauses. It is short and specific but took a long time coming.
To correct the unbearable situation that thousands of people are living in, the Bloc will do everything in its power to move this bill swiftly through the House of Commons and the parliamentary committee. As usual, we are open to any suggestions for improvement from witnesses at the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Again, the bill is simple and gets to the heart of the problem.
The concept of exploitation is clearly defined in the context of human trafficking. So exploitation means making a person work or provide services, quite often of a sexual nature, by acting in such a way that victims fear for their safety or that of a loved one if they do not comply with the demands being made. In fact, it would be difficult to be any more specific.
Imagine the stress and fear that prevent an individual from identifying an abuser or pimp, and you get a good idea of the problem we are trying to eradicate here. Add to this the clandestine nature and the international ramifications of the problem, and it becomes a complex issue.
Once in effect, Bill C-49 will provide us with modern tools with which to fight slavery, which unfortunately has also adapted to the reality of globalization.
(1305)
As I said during my introduction, prostitution is central to the activities of organized gangs, and the recruitment of foreign workers is facilitated by the wretched reality of people misled about the nature of the work they are seeking.
In a 2000 report by the United Nations on the trafficking of women, Canada was among the top 30 destination countries for human trafficking. We all agree that this is less glorious for “the best country in the world”.
This report states that victims of trafficking do not expose their employers, among others, because once identified by the authorities, they will not be allowed to remain in their country of adoption in order to seek protection or demand redress.
In a report published this year, the International Labour Organization estimated that 2.45 million people in the world are victims of forced labour.
The issue we are addressing today in the House is not, of course, restricted to the sexual exploitation of the victims of human trafficking. It is important to keep that in mind, although that aspect is easier to get a handle on. There are, however, also situations of forced labour under physical or psychological threat in such areas as construction, hotels, shipping or agriculture.
Exploitation of one human being by another is present everywhere at various levels, and the International Labour Organization has estimated that the revenue generated annually by such exploitation amounts to some US$32 billion.
Other countries have moved on this more quickly than Canada—and more power to them.
In 2000, the United States passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which created new offences as well as more severe penalties for crimes already included in the criminal code. Victims who work with the American authorities in order to help advance investigations into rings of trafficking and forced labour will be protected from deportation. The United Kingdom, France, Russia and Japan have recently amended their legislation to include provisions on trafficking in human beings.
Finally, passage of Bill C-49, the bill before the House at this time, will move Canada one step further along the road to a better world, and the Bloc Québécois will make an effective contribution to this.
In closing, I will make a commitment on behalf of my party to getting this bill passed as promptly as possible in order to provide our police, prosecutors and the law enforcement community with all the best tools needed to counteract this 21st century scourge as quickly as possible. This is my solemn appeal to all colleagues of all parties: work along with us to get this bill passed quickly, so that such tools will be available for the protection of these people, these women and children, in such great need of our assistance and protection.
(1310)
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech in support of Bill C-49.
Much of this debate has been about sentencing issues. It appears there is support for the bill, but the sentencing issues and the ability of the legislation to be enforced has come into question. I am wondering whether the House needs to have a take note debate on things like conditional sentencing, mandatory minimums, house arrest, and so on.
I am sure the member can provide a perspective as he is a member of the justice committee.
My question has to do with the provincial resources available to do the job. We can pass laws to change the Criminal Code but there is the enforceability and the resources, to have the assets available, the officers to do the work, as well as the resources of jails. The fastest growing business in the United States is jail building. The growth industry is jails. The member agrees.
I wonder whether part of the problem related to the bill is the inability of the courts to provide for the incarceration of those who commit abhorrent crimes such as child pornography, or with regard to the bill, the exploitation of the poor.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the member who asked me the question speak with his finance minister and the Prime Minister. Naturally, the provinces are struggling financially and they are having a hard time balancing their books. There is in this country a fiscal imbalance such that Ottawa has means much larger than its needs and, conversely, the provinces have needs much larger than their means. This is the kind of thing a province could do, if it so decided, with the money that it should have.
My answer to the hon. colleague with whom I had fascinating discussions a few years ago, while flying over the North Atlantic, is simply that he should tell his party to address the fiscal imbalance. That would be one way to help these provinces which, unfortunately, cannot always afford to do all they would like to do. They have desperate needs in health and education. Naturally, they have to set priorities, and may not be able to meet all their needs. This is my plea to this hon. colleague.
His colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, is also turning a deaf ear. He will not even recognize that there is a fiscal imbalance, even though every province and every party in the National Assembly does. This government is the only one with its head in the sand, the only one that will not recognize this fundamental problem currently facing Canada's society and government.
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ): Madam Speaker, first I want to commend my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his fine speech. I might add that he always provides our party with good advice, especially on justice-related matters.
My colleague rightly mentioned the importance of having legislation on trafficking in persons. His constituents, as well as mine, are surprised that we do not already have such legislation.
I rise to ask him whether during any of the research or discussions at the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness any other aspects of Canadian policies were examined on whether we might in fact be promoting trafficking in persons.
In the spring there was the whole debate on the lack of certain qualified labourers, namely nude dancers. To our great astonishment we learned, here in the House of Commons, that bars were importing dancers because there was a lack of this type of worker and that for the most part, these dancers were probably being handed over to organized crime.
I want to know if my colleague has any thoughts on the matter. Furthermore, would it not be appropriate during this debate to invite those responsible for justice and labour to examine this side of the issue?
(1315)
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Chambly—Borduas for his question.
Of course, a problem as important as this must be seen in context and studied in more depth. I can assure him that we will do this. I would also like to underline the work done by my friend, the Bloc critic for immigration. She has studied this aspect. Being a woman herself, she is very sensitive to the problems that people who want to come to this country can face, as well as to the abuses that there can be under the current system. Among other things, this system allows women to enter who might then be exploited. I have spoken with her about this and know that she is very sensitive to it, as am I.
My colleague from Chambly—Borduas is doing a tremendous job in this House. I had an opportunity to see him in my riding this summer. He met people, footwear workers, who were very happy about their discussions with him. And I would like to thank him publicly. I can assure him that we will work very hard to ensure that everything that can be done to fight this 21st century slavery will be done in order to put an end to this scourge as best we can.
[English]
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his very eloquent speech in support of this government bill. I particularly appreciated his research and the references to international organizations.
I do have to disagree on the suggestion that there is a fiscal imbalance. The member well knows that his province has the same type of tax-creating abilities and expenditure controls. It can increase its income tax, sales tax, et cetera.
Her Majesty's loyal opposition has suggested that one of the weaknesses in this legislation is that there are no mandatory minimums. It was also suggested that we should in general get rid of conditional sentences. One of the reasons given was that there are suspended sentences. I am not sure what the difference is between someone on the street with a suspended sentence and someone on the street with a conditional sentence. I am not sure why that would be better.
Does the member agree with me that there are some offences in Canada where a conditional sentence may be warranted and may be useful in either protecting the public or helping with rehabilitation?
My second question is one which I asked the loyal opposition when we were talking about sentences. Does the member see any way to increase sentences or does he see any need to increase sentences on some occasions for severe sexual assaults or other assaults against women whose entire lives have perhaps been destroyed or taken away? Some sentences appear to be unreasonably light.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, I have one minute to speak to you about a subject that is obviously very broad.
I would just like to say that we are not automatically against the very idea of minimum sentences. I myself have had motions to this effect inserted and passed with the help of other members on the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in regard to child pornography and the protection of vulnerable persons.
However, I do not think that this should be a guiding principle of our criminal code. There is no evidence, in most cases, that minimum sentences work.
I had a discussion a few hours ago with my colleague from Marc-Aurèle Fortin, an eminent jurist, great defence attorney and former Quebec justice minister. I could add that this minister left very positive memories of his days in the Quebec government. So I am saying that I am not automatically opposed to this. The cases in which obligatory minimum sentences are inserted in the criminal code must be carefully targeted.
(1320)
[English]
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Madam Speaker, Bill C-49 comes out of a reality which I suppose none of us really want to accept.
I always think that I am optimistic in my viewpoint of humanity and progress in the world. One of the points I always make in that regard is that we conquered slavery, slavery that was part of any number of institutional and government makeups from time immemorial. We beat that one. We progressed. We outlawed slavery right across the world. Unfortunately, when we come to the question of human trafficking, the reality is that we have not. There still is a small part of the world, individuals mostly involved in organized crime, who are engaged in what in effect is slavery. There is no other way to look at it.
When I was looking at Bill C-49, I thought, do we really need this bill? There are provisions within the Criminal Code that would deal with what oftentimes is kidnapping, hostage taking, assaults, and more serious violent crimes against individuals. When we look at the scope of the problem, the ultimate conclusion we have to draw is that we do need the bill.
I cannot help but bring this home to my own riding. We have a major crossing in Windsor and Tecumseh and Essex County. In the last five to seven years we have had a series of incidents of trafficking in humans.
We so often hear about young women in particular, and sometimes young men but almost always young women, who are being trafficked for the purpose of the sex trade. But there are others who appear to be used to provide cheap slave labour in the garment industry, the farming industry, which is all in the U.S. There are even people in the service industry, in restaurants and hotels. These people work at way below minimum wage in working conditions that oftentimes are horrible. They are doing so because of threat to their personal safety and oftentimes threats to their family members in their country of origin. We have seen that.
We have had some tragedies in Windsor as a result of this type of crime. There is a train tunnel that crosses between Windsor and Detroit. In the last five to seven years I think there have been three deaths as people were being smuggled through the tunnel. We think at least on one occasion it was one of the smugglers who was killed. The other two were victims of these crimes.
We have seen from some of the victims who have been apprehended that they come from all over the world. They come from Asia, China, Vietnam and India.
As we heard earlier from the Bloc member, a large number of people, especially young women, come from the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Some come from the Middle East. Interestingly enough a number of people come from Central and South America. They come up to Canada usually by boat along Canada's shores and then they are smuggled into the United States as what in effect will be slave labour.
There is no question about the problem. We heard from the parliamentary secretary the figure of 700,000 people a year that are trafficked. I have heard figures as high as a couple of million. The problem is there. Canada is one of the countries that is a recipient of this trade, mostly as a conduit into the United States. We have to deal with this problem.
(1325)
Turning specifically to the bill, we have to ask the question, does it properly address the creation of new crimes? It makes sense to make the offence of human trafficking a specific crime. It would be much easier for our prosecutors and our police forces to obtain convictions if there was a specific charge.
Similarly, the additional charge that is being created which would make receiving a material benefit a crime under our Criminal Code makes sense. That one is often very difficult to establish. It may be taken into account in the sentencing, but right now, simply by showing that somebody has trafficked in humans, perhaps in the form of kidnapping or hostage taking, and then trying to prove that it is a separate crime because one has received a material benefit does not exist in our Criminal Code. The creation of the additional charge makes sense.
Often the victims' passports, travel documents, visas, and personal identification documents are removed from them as another means of control. By creating that specific offence, as is done in this bill, it would attack that conduct and convert it into a serious criminal offence punishable by what I consider to be fairly severe penalties.
I suppose I am speaking not only to the other members of the justice committee who will be reviewing this bill but also to the Canadian people more specifically when I say that one does have to be careful. The bill has significant limitations in terms of how it would be used. In order for us to comprehend that, we have to understand the nature of these crimes.
The vast majority of these crimes are perpetrated by organized crime around the globe. Because of the nature of the traffic in this country, a great deal of that organized crime, and in particular the ringleaders of those crime syndicates are not here in Canada because the crime originates elsewhere, for example, in the former Soviet Union, in Vietnam, or in China. It is in the country of origin where the crime originates. That is where the organized crime head pins tend to be situated. A great deal of the traffic that goes on here is by underlings. I will not say that for the biker gangs which we know are involved in the trafficking in the sex trade. We know that a number of those principals are here in Canada. The bill, if passed into law, would be useful in getting at them. What we and the Canadian public have to appreciate is that we will not get at the kingpins who are elsewhere, whether they are in the United States, in Europe, or in Asia. We will not be able to get at them with this bill.
We do need to take a more proactive position internationally on combating crime at its source. At least since the second world war we have done a reasonably good job of interacting with Interpol in dealing with crimes that are coming out of Europe. We have not been nearly as successful in other parts of the world. That is something we need to work on.
I do not think it can be done with legislation. It is one of those things where as parliamentarians we like to think we can resolve all problems. Maybe the Conservatives do not believe that, but I think the rest of us from time to time think we can resolve all problems by passing laws in this House. This is one of those times when it is clear it is not. This problem is only going to resolve itself, and I say that probably in the majority of cases, by getting to the source back in the countries of origin. That means international cooperation with governments across the globe.
It also speaks to another point. I want to raise the issue of terrorism and the amount of effort we have put into combating that. We have learned a lot about how to prevent incursions into Canada, as the Americans have in the U.S., those ideas, those thoughts and those enforcement mechanisms that we have developed to fight the agent who is coming into Canada on a clandestine operation or the terrorist bent on committing a serious crime. We have become much better at getting at that.
(1330)
We have not done the same at stopping the flow of human traffic, but we have learned. We can apply those same new thoughts, principles and mechanisms to help fight human trafficking, to stop it from happening in Canada.
We can only do that with international cooperation with police forces around the globe. A good deal is being done at the UN at this time. We have to insist that more be done by countries that look the other way when young women are trafficked out of the former Soviet Union or young workers out of China, Vietnam or India. When governments look the other way, when local police forces and local enforcement agencies look the other way, we have to call them on it. We have to tell them that this problem which originates in their countries is being foisted on us and we are prepared to deal with it here, but we should not have to deal with it, that it should be stopped before it gets to our shores. A great deal of work needs to be done on this issue by our foreign affairs department and through our security services internationally.
I would like to make one more small point with regard to Bill C-49. I have drawn this issue to the attention of the parliamentary secretary. One of the clauses in the legislation is probably going to be redundant, if it is not already, in that it has already been dealt with in Bill C-2, the child protection act which passed in the House and the Senate and is waiting final implementation. There are a couple of other technical matters in Bill C-49 which I have some concerns about as well.
The NDP will be supporting this bill subject to those minor changes, recognizing that it is not a panacea. It is not going to resolve half of the problems we are faced with in this country with respect to human trafficking. Our government has to do more at the international level to effectively combat this problem.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the debate has often drifted to looking offshore at other countries, the source from where all these people are coming. Bill C-49 refers to trafficking in persons. The member has suggested that we have to work within those countries through international cooperation. We also have trafficking in persons within Canada. Maybe the bill should be renamed to refer to exploitation of persons, exploitation of seniors, exploitation of children, exploitation of the vulnerable.
I wonder if we are going to have some influence over the initiatives taken in some of the other countries which are the highest perpetrators. Canada cannot just go to those countries and do something without taking a strong stand, defining our values, defining who Canadians are and how we feel about these things, how we feel about the exploitation of persons, the vulnerable, the weak, the poor. That is the kind of Canada we are. We need to say that. We need to express that within this legislation. I am not sure if the words “trafficking in persons” mean what they should to Canadians. We are talking about a piece of legislation that deals with the exploitation of persons and those who are involved directly or indirectly in that exploitation.
I would be interested in hearing the member's comments about what we can do to make a very bold statement about how we feel about the exploitation of persons.
(1335)
Mr. Joe Comartin: Madam Speaker, I do not think there is anyone in the House or any political party in the country that does not share the values that see trafficking in human beings as absolutely abhorrent. Does the bill go far enough in expressing those values? I am not sure. On the other hand, I do not believe there is any Canadian who would suggest that any member of the House and any Canadian does not see this conduct as abhorrent, and a value, if that is what we are expressing of Canada in wanting to prohibit this, wanting to get to the very root of it and wanting to root it out so that we are never faced with it.
I am not sure there is much more that Canada needs to do at the national level. I am much more concerned about our lack of activity at the international level. We need to play a more forceful role.
If I left the impression that trafficking does not go on in Canada, I did not mean to do that and I do not think I did. We know there is some of it here, but the vast majority of these cases come in from offshore. There is some trafficking in human life here in Canada, but it is very small, according to all the reports that I get. The emphasis has to be at the international level.
By passing the bill, if we need to communicate to doubters in the international community that we are serious about dealing with this issue, fine. It is one of the reasons that we should pass the bill.
The real work that needs to be done here, as I said earlier in my address, is with our security services and foreign affairs. They need to speak forcefully to those countries that allow what is oftentimes corruption to go on in their countries with regard to the trafficking in human beings.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the hon. member make his remarks with respect to Bill C-49. He has caught the true flavour and feeling that all of us have when it comes to dealing with this subject matter.
I am wondering whether he agrees with the approach of dealing with the bill in a way that we deal with exploitation as being a key element. Does he believe that is the proper approach and the approach that really goes to the essence of this issue?
Mr. Joe Comartin: Quite frankly, I have mixed feelings about that, Madam Speaker.
It was interesting when Bill C-2, the child protection bill, was working its way through the justice committee. We heard from a number of police officers who worked directly in the field, and prosecutors. I remember one from Toronto in particular. His entire career for the last 10 years or so was dealing with crimes against children particularly and trying to use the existing sections of the Criminal Code which talk about exploitation in the relationship of the two people involved in the sexual contact. He was very negative on his ability and the ability of the criminal justice system to gain convictions when we use terms like exploitive.
Our courts historically, going back through the British criminal justice system, have not been good at defining it, interpreting it and applying it so that we end up with convictions. I am a bit concerned about some of the wording that we have used in the bill. There is no question that in a number of these cases the relationship clearly is exploitive. In others it is simpler than that. It is slavery. It is slave labour that we are talking about. I cannot help but wonder if we could not make the wording somewhat clearer in those cases.
In the sex trade cases it is much more difficult. However, when people who work in the garment industry in New York City have been smuggled through Canada to get there, whether it is through Buffalo or Windsor, when we see that happening, it seems to me we can simply say that this is a form of slave labour. Perhaps we should be using that kind of terminology.
(1340)
[Translation]
Mr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak today to Bill C-49, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons).
[English]
The bill is important for many reasons. It is important because it would more clearly recognize and denounce human trafficking. It is important because it would provide increased protection to those who are most vulnerable to this criminal conduct, namely women and children. It is important because it would impose increased accountability for those who engage in it. It is important because it realizes what I believe is one of this government's most important commitments: the protection of the vulnerable.
Human trafficking, or the recruitment, transportation or harbouring of persons for the purpose of exploitation, has become the new global slave trade. We have heard this reference to slavery several times today and all the vileness such references conjure up. It is a practice that affects all countries, including Canada, and because of this it has become an issue of prominence and priority for the international community, for Canada and for us regionally, including my region of Niagara, together with the United States and Mexico as part of the new security and prosperity partnership of North America.
The United Nations has estimated that as many as 700,000 persons are trafficked around the world each year. UNICEF has estimated that as many as 1.2 million children are trafficked globally each year.
In May of this year, the International Labour Organization estimated that at least 2.45 million people across the world are in situations of forced labour as a result of human trafficking. Of these, it is estimated that 32% are trafficked for economic exploitation and 43% are trafficked for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation, with 98% of these being women and girls.
Those estimates show that those at greatest risk of being trafficked are those who suffer social, economic and legal disadvantage, in other words, children and women who are typically trafficked for sexual exploitation purposes or for forced labour.
As a consequence, in support of a stronger response to this horrible crime, I am very pleased to rise today and speak in favour of these proposed reforms which would create three new Criminal Code indictable offences.
The main offence of trafficking in persons would specifically prohibit anyone from engaging in specified acts, such as recruiting, transporting, harbouring or controlling the movements of another person for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of that person. This offence would carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment where it involves the kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault or death of the victim and to a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment in any other case. These are very significant penalties.
The second new offence would prohibit anyone from receiving a financial or other material benefit for the purpose of committing or facilitating the trafficking of a person. This offence would be punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.
The third new offence would prohibit the withholding or destruction of documents, such as a victim's travel documents or documents establishing their identity for the purpose of committing or facilitating the trafficking of that person. This offence would carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
These reforms also recognize that the exploitation of the victims is at the very heart of the criminal conduct and so we are proposing to make exploitation an element of the trafficking offence itself.
There are many manifestations of human trafficking. Some of these can be addressed through the trafficking in persons offence in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which applies to cross border trafficking and addresses exploitation as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.
I believe that the proposed Criminal Code reforms would better enable us to address more forms of trafficking, including trafficking that occurs wholly within Canada. Ultimately, with the proposed Criminal Code amendments, law enforcement officials would have a significantly enhanced ability to ensure that the offence charged, whether it is under these new Criminal Code offences or under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, is the one that best responds to the facts of a specific trafficking case and best achieves our ultimate objective, namely the protection of the victim and effective prosecution of the offender.
I also understand that the proposed Criminal Code reforms have been developed in close collaboration with the interdepartmental working group on trafficking in persons which is currently developing a federal anti-trafficking strategy to coordinate and enhance federal anti-trafficking measures.
(1345)
I understand that the strategy will focus on preventing trafficking, protecting victims and holding offenders to account in keeping with international standards. There is clearly a continuing commitment to address this serious issue beyond legislative reform. Right now these reforms will help us to achieve these ultimate objectives.
[Translation]
I really believe that the proposed reforms are important ones. They respect the commitment made in our throne speech and underscore our ongoing commitment to revisit our measures against trafficking in persons.
I therefore hope that all hon. members will support the proposed reforms.
Mr. Marc Godbout (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would certainly like to congratulate the member for Welland on his brilliant presentation in connection with this important bill.
The bill gives a definition of exploitation and refers to a number of types of exploitation.
Could the hon. member clarify this? What is included in the term “exploitation”?
[English]
Mr. John Maloney: Madam Speaker, human trafficking is all about the exploitation of victims which is why it is a key element of these amendments as we address exploitation directly.
Under these new offences, exploitation would be defined as causing a person to provide labour or services, certainly such sexual services, by engaging in conduct that leaves the victims to reasonably fear for their safety or the safety of others they may know, such as a child or a family member.
Another interesting aspect is that it would also apply to the use of force, coercion, intimidation or deception causing the removal of an internal organ. This is something that has not come forward today but it is certainly a growing concern within this country. Human organs and tissues are certainly things that some people would almost give their lives for because they will lose their lives if they do not get them. It is becoming a matter of increasing concern that people would be forced or intimidated to furnish their human organs for another's purposes and for profit.
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, some of the opposition critics have suggested there was nothing to prevent this in the past but in fact the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already has a specific offence against human trafficking. In fact there have been convictions under that act.
I would just like to ask the member why these new offences are needed when we already have provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Mr. John Maloney: Madam Speaker, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act has been a vehicle through which these types of offences have been dealt with but generally speaking these are offences that cross borders and this act does deal with that.
This act also deals with exploitation but it is predominantly within the country. There is trafficking within our country from region to region and this is not covered by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Now we have that base covered as well, which is very important.
(1350)
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from the Liberal Party how he squares the circle of speaking today about trafficking of human beings and introducing legislation to that effect, and the fact that the Government of Canada for years has been pimping for the underworld by bringing Romanian strippers to work in Canadian strip joints, some of them owned by prominent Liberal lawyers in Toronto, and then losing track of these women into the pornography and sex trade underworld in Canada.
I want to know how a Liberal member of Parliament can stand and talk about passing legislation on sex trafficking of women when the Government of Canada, by policy, has been pimping for underworld practitioners by dragging these exploited women from eastern European countries into brothels and strip joints owned by prominent Liberal immigration lawyers in the city of Toronto. How does he justify that?
Mr. John Maloney: Madam Speaker, I find that question most interesting and perhaps amusing. Certainly no member of this party and this government would pimp in the nature that the individual has suggested. That is shameful in my opinion.
We invite people to come to this country to perform certain labour. I would suggested that we had an isolated case a year or so ago but we definitely would not knowingly allow this to go on. In fact, when it came to the light of the authorities it was certainly investigated.
We are just concluding a study and certainly prostitution and the trafficking of women will be key items in the report. The government is addressing those situations. The forfeiture of documents is exactly what happens. Women could come to this country thinking they have legitimate employment only to find that their documents have been confiscated, that they owe a big debt to the individuals who brought them here and are then forced into prostitution to satisfy the debt. This is something that this committee will be looking at and will be making recommendations on so that this type of practice is discontinued.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member across the way would care to comment on Canada's international standing. I believe the OSCE puts out a report every year regarding Canada's part in slavery, in the white slave trade, et cetera. There are three categories and I believe it is category one that has open borders and allows all of this to happen. I believe it is category three that has the tightest security. I may have those numbers reversed but Canada was a number two and I believe it still is a number two.
According to the report, because of the loose immigration and the border aspect of that, women and young children are brought into this country, are held in Canada for a certain period of time and are exported to another country where child slavery, child pornography or just plain old ordinary prostitution takes place.
I would like to hear the member's comments on that particular issue. Does he know what Canada's standing is this year?
Mr. John Maloney: Madam Speaker, quite frankly, I am not familiar with the unnamed report to which the member referred so I cannot really make much comment on that. However with regard to loose immigration I take issue with that statement.
I personally have never heard of a situation where we would import people, whether it is men, women or children, to export to other nations. The member is nodding yes. I am certainly not familiar with activities of that nature. I think the suggestion that this goes on is reprehensible that we as a country would allow this. If the member would provide additional information I would certainly like to follow up on that.
However even in our study on prostitution and trafficking of women into this country, children were not referenced. Trafficking of women perhaps does go on but it was not as if they were trafficked here to go elsewhere.
(1355)
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as has been mentioned in the House today, Canada does have other laws that have been applied to human trafficking but not necessarily domestic laws that have been as precise as what are being proposed in Bill C-49.
I wonder if the hon. member, who I know is well versed in matters of justice and sits as the chair of the justice committee, might be able to comment on how effective Canada has been in terms of bringing human traffickers to justice using the existing methods that we have at our disposal.
Mr. John Maloney: Madam Speaker, as we have referenced, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act has been a very successful act to prosecute those who traffic across the Canadian border. In April of this year the first charge was laid under the specific trafficking in persons offence, section 118 of the IRPA.
Additionally, a review of the Criminal Code cases from March of 2004 to February of 2005 identified at least 31 individuals who were charged with trafficking related offences which resulted in 19 convictions. The remaining 12 cases were before the courts.
The government saw a need and responded to that need. The effectiveness is being indicated and illustrated in the specifics which I just provided.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Thunder Bay Border Cats
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the Thunder Bay Border Cats on capturing the 2005 Northwoods League Baseball Championship with an astounding 4-3 win over the American Madison Mallards in front of a record 3,091 cheering fans.
In 2003 the Thunder Bay Border Cats joined the Northwoods League, which is comprised of 12 teams of top collegiate players from across the United States and Canada. After just three seasons, President John Wendal, General Manager Greg Balec and their dedicated staff and players have earned the respect of both the league and the community through their tenacious support.
I ask my fellow members to join me in congratulating the Thunder Bay Border Cats, the 2005 Northwoods League champions.
* * *
Gasoline Prices
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): Madam Speaker, while the Minister of Finance rubs his hands gleefully over another surplus, Canadian taxpayers are searching their empty pockets for the money it will take to keep their families warm this winter.
Gas prices are threatening to reach $2 a litre at the pumps and heating costs could double. The finance minister shrugs his shoulders and suggests that a few cents here and there will make no difference. What arrogance.
In fact, each increase of 1¢ per litre at the pump is equal to $32 million to the Government of Canada. The minister has a choice and he knows it. He can help Canadians immediately by reducing the GST on fuel.
This is not the time to be profiting from high gas prices. This is the time to reduce the GST, reduce the price at the pumps and help Canadians.
* * *
Orleans Rebels
Mr. Marc Godbout (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate today Sarah Thompson, Jenn Labelle, Erin Durant, Jenny Allen, Sarah Renaud, Lindsey Hutton, Ashley Vautour, Jillian Taylor, Carolyn Chmiel, Sarah Collins and Sam Pantalone, all members of the Orleans Rebels, a girls fastball team.
These young ladies won both the provincial Tier II Grand Championship and the prestigious Adirondack Avalanche Summer Invitational Tournament in Glen Falls, New York. They also finished third in the 22-team Canada-U.S. pool at the Montreal International Summer Classic, and they brought home the eastern Canadian championship from Saint John, New Brunswick.
I wish to offer my congratulations to these young ladies and their coaches. All residents of Ottawa-Orleans are very proud of them.
* * *
(1400)
[Translation]
Simon Wiesenthal
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ): Madam Speaker, on September 20, at the venerable age of 96, Simon Wiesenthal passed away. He was one of the most famous Holocaust survivors. He dedicated his life to the pursuit of justice, particularly through his tireless hunt for Nazi war criminals.
Born on December 31, 1908, Simon Wiesenthal experienced the horrors of the death camps and the disappearance of 89 members of his own family at the brutal hands of the Nazis.
After the second world war, in pursuit not of vengeance but rather justice, he devoted himself to hunting down Nazi criminals, wherever they were hiding. As a result, he helped locate some 1,100 war criminals, including Adolf Eichmann, one of the architects of the Shoah, and Franz Stangl, camp commander for Treblinka and Sobibor.
He has been called the conscience of the Holocaust by refusing to bury his terrible memories and serving as a permanent reminder of the victims of the Holocaust.
He believed, and rightly so, that freedom without justice was impossible. The victims of the Holocaust and the entire world are forever in his debt.
* * *
Hurricane Katrina
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.): Madam Speaker, Canadians were saddened by the tragic events that occurred in Louisiana and Mississippi as a result of Hurricane Katrina.
The mayor of Bouctouche, Aldéo Saulnier, and numerous residents of this New Brunswick town decided to do something to help their Cajun friends in Saint Martinville, Louisiana, where thousands of evacuees sought shelter.
Aldéo organized a campaign, and individuals and businesses made generous donations of cash and goods to assist victims in Louisiana. A truck fully loaded with donations was sent off to Saint Martinville. People have shown remarkable generosity.
[English]
I congratulate the mayor of Bouctouche and the many volunteers who came to assist the people of Saint Martinville, Louisiana, their twin community, who were affected by the terrible events of Hurricane Katrina.
* * *
Emergency Preparedness
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, every community across Canada can fall victim to a tragedy. Unfortunately, the federal Liberal government's failure to adequately prepare it for emergency will cost us lives. The fact that only 14% of its promised funding for Nova Scotia's disasters has been delivered speaks volumes.
When I assisted in flood relief in the United States and Manitoba, I witnessed first-hand the benefits of proper training, equipment and preparation. The government continues to ignore the lessons of history. Our medical professionals, licensed provincially, would be unable to administer medical assistance across provincial borders.
Most first responders remain under-equipped and poorly trained. Before a disaster is the best time to prepare. Let us cut the red tape. Let us train and fund emergency preparedness now, not after a disaster.
* * *
[Translation]
Simon Wiesenthal
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to Simon Wiesenthal, who died in Vienna at the age of 96.
Sixty years ago, Simon Wiesenthal was a man without a name, without hope and without a future, known only by the number tattooed on his arm. The only survivor from a family of 89 people shipped to Nazi extermination camps, Simon Wiesenthal dedicated the last 50 years of his life to hunting down the war criminals responsible for murdering 6 million Jews in Europe during the Holocaust; he played a significant role in the capture of Adolf Eichmann and Franz Stangl, the commandants at the Treblinka and Sobibor camps.
He will be remembered as the conscience of the Holocaust because, as he often said, “When history looks back, I want people to know the Nazis weren't able to kill millions of people and get away with it”
Simon Wiesenthal, we shall never forget.
* * *
(1405)
Gérin-Lajoie Doctrine
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with profound outrage, the people of Quebec have once again seen the Liberal government renege on its promises. Indeed, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has declared that he would not allow Quebec to speak with its own voice on the international scene, even in matters within its jurisdiction, for fear that, one day, the government in Quebec might be headed by sovereignty fanatics.
However, shortly before the 2004 federal election was called, the Prime Minister had recognized that, in international forums, Quebec should be allowed to speak on matters within its jurisdiction.
On behalf of the government, the member for Papineau is backing out of the positions developed in the 1960s by Liberal minister Paul Gérin-Lajoie. He is joining the ranks of those who want to build Canada on the back of Quebec. More importantly, he is making it clear that, if it wants to defend its own interests in international forums, Quebec has no choice but to achieve complete and full sovereignty.
* * *
[English]
Simon Wiesenthal
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too rise today to pay tribute to the late Simon Wiesenthal, the famed Nazi hunter who died last Tuesday at the age of 96.
Mr. Wiesenthal was a prisoner in the Mauthausen death camp in Austria when it was liberated in 1945. Following its liberation, he made it his life's work to track down those individuals responsible for the Holocaust. Not only did he seek justice for the victims of the Holocaust, but he was truly a voice for those who could not speak. Often called the conscience of the Holocaust, his efforts helped bring more than 1,100 Nazi war criminals to justice.
Today the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, headquartered in Los Angeles, continues the work started by him. It continues to strive to eliminate anti-Semitism, as well as other forms of tolerance in today's world.
I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Mr. Wiesenthal, his accomplishments and his legacy.
* * *
Internet in Schools
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the educational use of the Internet in schools across our nation is now in jeopardy. Why? Because the government has tabled a piece of copyright legislation that ignores the fact that the legal framework for Internet use in the classroom is not addressed. This could have devastating consequences for teachers and students in my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul and all across our nation. The 2005 school year has already started. It has to be done now.
All educators want is access to information on the Internet that is intended to be free of charge in the first place. Creators who wish to sell their materials online can limit access very readily through a subscription or a password process. This educational amendment is crucial to the schools across our nation.
* * *
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the past six weeks the management of CBC has locked out 5,000 employees. This lockout is not only affecting workers and their livelihoods but the longer the situation is allowed to continue the more the future of the CBC is called into question.
Like other members, I have requested that the heritage committee call before it members of senior management of the CBC in order to explain to Parliament why CBC workers continue to be locked out and also to explain their mandate for the corporation as they see it. As well, some of us have also indicated that we will refuse to do CBC interviews as long as the lockout continues.
Many of us now believe the public has a right to know what is really going on. The CBC that Canadians trust is in danger of slowly disappearing. The CBC is not just another corporation, not just another service to the public, but a symbol of our country, indeed a value that we need to sustain.
I call upon the CBC management to act in good faith and to end the lockout.
* * *
Terry Fox's Marathon of Hope
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, amid all the end of summer controversy about hurricane Katrina, gas prices, the CBC lockout and various other important issues, many Canadians quite properly focused for a time on a very important anniversary, the 25th anniversary of Terry Fox's Marathon of Hope.
The courage and determination Terry displayed in his fight against cancer and for a cure continues to be a remarkable source of inspiration to millions.
On September 16, I was pleased to walk with students from Wayoata Elementary School in Transcona at an event to honour Terry Fox. Terry is very special to the students of Wayoata Elementary School because he attended there for two years before his family moved to B.C. in 1966.
Transcona is proud to be associated with Terry Fox. He has become a national and international symbol of both the tragedy of cancer and the inextinguishable hope that some day, through working together to fund research and prevention, cancer will be beaten.
* * *
Anthony Gordon, Leo Johnston, Brock Myrol and Peter Schiemann
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today the family members of the murdered RCMP officers, Constables Anthony Gordon, Leo Johnston, Brock Myrol and Peter Schiemann, made the following statement:
|
Today our families call upon Parliament...to begin crafting an effective national drug strategy... This strategy would involve committing far greater resources to law enforcement agencies at both provincial and federal levels in the war against drugs. |
The families went on to say:
|
Our politicians also need to see that Canadians want change. We therefore ask all Canadians on October 3--one week from today and exactly seven months since our sons were murdered--to turn on their front lights from 8-10 p.m. Whether it be a front porch light, a garage light, a light in your living room apartment--please turn it on. We want to see a wave of light move across Canada's time zones from east to west as a show of unity on these issues. Let it be a wave of light and a surge of energy for change. So the appeal from our four families to all Canadians is that you join us in this referendum of lights. |
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Gasoline Prices
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the dramatic spikes in the cost of oil continue to hold the consumers of Quebec and Canada hostage.
Regardless of the international context, it is wrong to believe that the federal government is without recourse and has no means of curbing the increase in the price of oil or mitigating its impact.
On April 20 Liberals and Conservatives rejected a Bloc Québécois motion to create a petroleum monitoring agency responsible for preparing an annual report on all aspects of the industry.
Over the summer, the Bloc Québécois proposed an assistance plan for the most vulnerable: families on modest incomes, remote areas and the hardest hit sectors of the economy. This plan also recognizes that it is imperative to discipline the industry, reduce our dependence on oil and increase taxes on the oil industry.
Solutions exist, but the federal Liberals refuse to budge and to implement them for fear of upsetting their friends and contributors in the major oil companies.
* * *
[English]
Chuck Cadman
Hon. Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to our former friend and colleague, the former member of Parliament for Surrey North, Chuck Cadman.
It was out of great personal tragedy that Chuck first chose to present himself for public office.
The senseless death of his son Jesse in 1992 drove Chuck to become an outspoken advocate of victims' rights in Canada. He and his wife Donna founded the group Crime Responsibility and Youth to counsel and help young offenders and at risk youth. His agenda was clear: Changes needed to be made to the criminal justice system, specifically stricter sentences for violent young offenders.
Chuck was an honest and decent man who wanted change for the better. He was a loving husband, a caring father and a good friend to many.
His hard work and dedication to justice issues will forever be his legacy in Ottawa, in Surrey and right across the country.
* * *
Somalia
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. Sharif Hassan Shaykh Aden, Speaker of the Transitional Federal Parliament of Somalia, is visiting with his Canadian counterparts to share with us the many challenges that his country faces.
Just recently I returned from a fact finding mission to Somalia where I saw first-hand the heart-wrenching conditions that are the result of 14 years of civil war and the anarchy of warlordism.
I also met with President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, Prime Minister Ali Muhammad Ghedi, as well as many ministers and parliamentarians of the transitional federal government.
The message I heard from the Somali people was that their country had arrived at an historic opportunity and that they were awaiting their leaders to rise to the occasion, to set aside their personal interests and ambitions in order to reclaim a future for the people of Somalia and for the children of Somalia.
I welcome Speaker Aden and I hope that his visit will give impetus to Canada playing a greater role in civil society building in Somalia during this historic opportunity.
Somalia Hánolato!
* * *
[Translation]
Élie Fallu
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last June, Élie Fallu announced his retirement from active politics. I want to pay tribute to this kind-hearted man, who for 43 years worked endlessly for the people of Quebec and Sainte-Thérèse.
Mr. Fallu was heavily involved in the Lower Laurentian area in the union movement, education, and promoting arts and culture. He was instrumental in getting the Montréal—Blainville—Saint-Jérôme commuter train on the tracks.
He was twice elected to the Quebec National Assembly as a member of the Parti Québécois. He was the mayor of Sainte-Thérèse and reeve of the Thérèse-De Blainville RCM. His entire life and career were guided by his desire to serve his people and to fight poverty.
He was one of the first sovereignists and an active member of the Council for Sovereignty, who proclaimed his unwavering faith in the ability of Quebeckers to govern themselves.
Mr. Fallu, the Bloc Québécois salutes and thanks you.
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, early this summer I was given the unpleasant news that I have cancer. It is the sort of news that thousands of Canadians, including many in this House, must grapple with all too often. Medically speaking, let us just say that I have had better summers.
Yet the summer also reconfirmed that when the going gets tough it is relationships that really matter.
My relationship to constituents, to friends and co-workers matter more than ever.
My relationship to God brings a peace that passes understanding.
My relationship to family, many of whom are here today, is always special, and this summer it has been especially sweet.
Many people have taken time to encourage us during the weeks since my diagnosis and I want to thank every one. My family and I treasure every word, we cherish every call and we covet every prayer. Truly, encouragement is one of the gifts of the spirit.
It is time now for all of us to get back to our nation's business and I have been looking forward to this for some time. The work here will always be important to me but those relationships that I talked of will be important forever.
ORAL QUESTIONS
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Justice
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today the families of the four RCMP officers tragically murdered near Mayerthorpe, Alberta are in Ottawa and they are seeking some changes to the criminal justice system.
Since this tragedy, we have continued to see a shocking rise in gun crime and gun violence right across this country but no action at all from the government. Will the Prime Minister join with police officers, their families and others across the country in committing to mandatory minimum sentences for serious repeat and violent crimes?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was in Alberta for the commemoration and memorials in honour of the four Mounties who lost their lives. It certainly was one of the most emotional experiences I have ever gone through and I am sure for those who watched it, it was exactly the same thing.
I met the families and had long discussions with them. I can assure the families and I can assure the hon. member that the government takes the issues that he has raised very seriously and that the government does intend, as has already been indicated, to act within this area.
* * *
(1420)
Gasoline Prices
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Prime Minister that we will continue to seek real action not just good feelings.
Over the past three months, besides rising gun crimes, Canadian businesses and consumers have been enduring record high gas prices across the country. On this issue as well, Canadians have seen nothing other than 100 days of inaction from the government.
Rather than continue to rake in record high revenues from record high oil prices, will the government simply cut gas taxes for consumers?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the majority of these taxes, certainly the excise tax, do not go up when gas prices go up. He also knows that as a result of actions taken by this government, 50% of those gas taxes will ultimately go to municipalities across the country to pay for things like urban transit, sustainable development and good roads.
If what the hon. member is suggesting is that in fact the money going to the municipalities should be cut, I think it would be very counterproductive. If fact I think those municipalities require that money, especially at this time.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, every time gas prices rise a cent, almost $40 million goes into the coffers of the government. It should stay in the pockets of consumers.
[Translation]
Here is a perfect example of this government's inaction. Three weeks ago, truckers in New Brunswick sent a letter to the Prime Minister asking the government to take action against the high price of gasoline. They have yet to receive a response.
Will the Prime Minister answer the truckers, and what actions will be taken?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question put by the leader of the opposition is clearly unfounded. The fact is that the government is not pocketing this money nor does it intend to do so.
Last year, the Minister of Finance put this money into a fund for medical equipment. The government intends to consider such options. We are not pocketing this money.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister spent the summer burning jet fuel in the Challenger making phony announcements, his cabinet ministers were touring the country in limos tanked up on taxpayer dollars. In contrast, Canadians were lined up at local gas stations getting fleeced by record high fuel costs.
From the cozy confines of 24 Sussex, the Prime Minister continues to dither on tax relief for Canadians. His government is pulling in money hand over fist because of the increased taxes on oil and gas.
When is the government going to give Canadians a tax break and stop gouging them on the high cost of oil and gas?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the statistics would show that the government does not anticipate a windfall from this situation. However we are determined to redirect any increased federal revenues to the benefit of Canadians, especially those in the greatest need. As I have said several times, we are considering our options for doing that in the most efficient and cost effective manner.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister's credibility on surplus as well as corporate tax breaks is pretty speculative. Seniors and Canadians on fixed incomes getting their oil tanks filled this winter, truckers bringing in products on an already razor thin margin and farmers and fishermen bringing in cash crop and catch are all being hit by the increased cost of fuel.
The Prime Minister said that lowering the gas taxes would not be an answer, that this was not what was required. His finance minister said the same thing, that lowering taxes at the pump would not make a difference. It would make a difference for Canadians.
Why are Canadians carrying the costs of these increases in taxes and when will we see some action on the cost of fuel?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish the problem were as simple to solve as the hon. gentleman suggests. Unfortunately, the complexity and the volatility of the marketing chain means that we can see at the pump a variation in prices of 5¢ or 10¢ within a matter of a few hours.
A tax break of 2¢ or 3¢ per litre would rapidly become invisible. Indeed, the industry suggests that we would need a forensic auditor to find it.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has said that there was nothing the federal government could do about the spike in gas prices. However, there are several avenues this government could take to alleviate the burden on consumers directly. The Bloc Québécois recently proposed a whole series of solutions including tax credits for low-income families and for public transit costs, and incentives for converting from oil heating.
Instead of dithering at the consumer's expense, why does the Prime Minister not move forward with the Bloc Québécois' proposals that are quick and easy to apply?
(1425)
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois is well aware that last year, when we were in a similar situation, the Minister of Finance deposited government receipts, the GST surplus for example, into a fund earmarked for medical equipment. This was very important for low-income, disadvantaged families.
The government has no intention of pocketing any money. We are looking at the very same kind of option.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): I must admit I am having a hard time following the Prime Minister's logic. I would like him to present concrete measures for farmers, independent truck drivers and the entire forestry sector. These are people directly affected.
What is the Prime Minister waiting for to take action and present concrete measures in order to help low-income families and those currently affected by the spike in gas prices?
We need answers, not recycled old speeches.
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has allocated up to half of the excise tax to municipalities, communities in Quebec and throughout Canada. This money will be used for roads and recreational equipment. This money will help Canadians who need it.
That is what we have already done. We are ahead of the Bloc Québécois.
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has been recommending for more than two years that the government set up a petroleum monitoring agency. The government never followed up on this recommendation, refusing to act.
Will the government admit today that its unwillingness to act has directly contributed to the exorbitant rise in petroleum prices, given that a significant portion of this rise largely exceeds the increase in the international price of crude oil?
Will it finally set up this agency?
[English]
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is concerned about rising fuel prices. We are concerned about transparency. I will be working with the Minister of Natural Resources to ensure that we do put in place a mechanism for monitoring gas and home heating fuel prices in the months ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Let us talk about transparency, Mr. Speaker. For the past five years, the Bloc Québécois has been asking that the powers of the Competition Bureau be increased to enable it to investigate extensively in the petroleum sector and take action, as required. This bureau's president himself testified before the committee that he lacked the necessary power to take effective action.
Will the government undertake today to amend Bill C-19 so as to provide the Competition Bureau with the effective tools and the powers it needs to act with regard to the petroleum sector?
[English]
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope the opposition supports Bill C-19. If we can amend and improve Bill C-19, we certainly will consider that.
* * *
Softwood Lumber
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, who has been on holiday far too long when it comes to defending the Canadian economy. Across the country people, communities and businesses are hurting because of George Bush's attack on our softwood industry. People have had it with the all talk, walk away from the talks but do nothing attitude of the government when it comes to standing up for Canada. People want a government that stands up for Canada in these trade disputes.
When will the Prime Minister finally stand up and tell George Bush that Canadians have had enough with his trade attacks?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has made it very clear that NAFTA is not an agreement to be ignored simply when American domestic interests demand it. This is an international agreement signed between two sovereign powers. Canada has won every single panel decision on the way up to the extraordinary challenge decision that was given earlier this summer. We have said, and I repeat now in the House, that the Americans should live up to the agreement they signed both in spirit and in letter.
* * *
(1430)
Gasoline Prices
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. It is all talk and empty rhetoric. What Canadians want to see is some action.
Let us turn to gas and energy prices because it is exactly the same situation. We have absolutely no action such as, for example, rules that would ensure energy efficiency so people could burn less. Instead, what they are doing is paying more.
When will the Prime Minister lay out a plan that will ensure Canadians can burn less and pay less for their own oil?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for my department it is an extremely high priority to reduce demand for energy by measures that improve energy efficiency while at the same time increasing supply by measures that encourage alternative energy. In these two ways, over the medium term, we certainly will provide benefits to Canadians by reducing their dependence on oil.
* * *
Justice
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, across Canada there has been a rapid increase in marijuana grow operations and crystal meth labs, destroying entire neighbourhoods. Along with the drug dealing is a marked increase in gun related violence.
How many more people need to die in our streets before the government decides to eliminate house arrest and impose mandatory prison sentences for drug dealers and violent gun crimes?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government will be introducing legislation particularly with regard to combatting issues of conditional sentences and ensuring both that our streets are safe and that innocent victims are protected.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is a promise the government has been making for 12 years. Social programs cannot work in drug and gun plagued communities unless the government is prepared to increase front line police resources and institute mandatory prison sentences for drug dealers, gunmen and other repeat violent offenders.
Will the minister commit today to eliminating house arrest for drug dealers and violent or repeat offenders and send them to prison so our children and our youth are safe?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are committed to introducing every initiative to protecting our streets and innocent victims, not only with regard to conditional sentencing in matters of gun related crime. While we now have more mandatory minimums for gun related crimes than any other crime in the Criminal Code, save for murder, we are still looking at that matter with regard to any initiatives we can introduce in regard to protecting our streets and our victims. We would appreciate the co-operation of the opposition in that regard.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has now been seven months since the four RCMP officers were killed near Mayerthorpe. The families want changes to the justice system that has failed them miserably.
Today they are calling for a complete review of the justice system. We cannot blame the judges, but legislators must send a clear message to the courts: serious crime deserves serious time.
Will the government commit to minimum sentences for serious drug and crime violations?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, together with the Minister of Health we rescheduled the whole question of crystal meth so we could attack it with enhanced sentencing in that regard. We have legislation before the House with regard to four new offences with enhanced penalties to combat the grow ops across the country. Where it is necessary we will introduce the required penalties in that regard.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, raising the maximums on crystal meth does not solve the problem when the minimums are not there.
Last week the RCMP officers raided another Quonset hut in Mayerthorpe and turned up 800 marijuana plants.
Marijuana and crystal meth are ruining lives and harming our communities, while criminals scoff at the law and laugh at our weak sentences. RCMP families see the dangers in the soft approach to marijuana in Bill C-17. They want it scrapped and so do we.
Will the government admit it was wrong and scrap the marijuana bill?
(1435)
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we introduced the bill. That bill is now before the House and now before the parliamentary committee. We respect the role of the parliamentary committee, and that is where the bill now resides.
* * *
[Translation]
Service Canada
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ): Mr. Speaker, faced with the sponsorship scandal, the federal government is not learning from its mistakes. The Prime Minister just appointed as head of Service Canada the very person who was in charge of the gun registry, another scandal involving nearly $2 billion for which his government will soon have to answer.
How can the Prime Minister explain his choice in appointing such a mediocre manager as the head of Service Canada?
[English]
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if anyone looks at the service Canada details, I think it is a fantastic story. It is about better service to more Canadians in more Canadian communities. In fact, we are expanding our points of service in the next couple of years from 300 to 600. Therefore, this is a great news story.
There are many layers of accountability factored in, including an advisory board, an office for client satisfaction and a service charter.
I am very proud to be associated with service Canada. It is a great news story.
[Translation]
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we shall see if the Auditor General is as proud as the minister. She reviewed the administration of the program and concluded that the program was poorly managed. One of those responsible for this mismanagement is the person selected by the Prime Minister to establish Service Canada.
Can the minister justify such a poor choice? Has the minister not learned any lessons from the sponsorship scandal, to be appointing such an individual as the head of Service Canada?
[English]
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is providing better service to more Canadian communities. It is outstanding service delivery organization with a view toward continuous improvement. It has a service charter and an office for client satisfaction, all with a view to creating a culture of one stop service delivery and continuous improvement for Canadian services.
* * *
[Translation]
Official Languages
Ms. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, an invitation to tender by PWGSC for the EnerGuide program in Quebec has excluded a number of francophone bidders who relied on the French bid documentation to prepare their bid, when this version is not consistent with the English version that the department, obviously, used to award the contracts.
Does the Minister of Public Works intend to cancel this invitation to tender and relaunch the process so that there is no prejudice against francophone bidders?
[English]
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, public works is presently reviewing the bid documentation to ensure fairness to all in the evaluation process.
As a result of the recent RFP on this program, the department received 35 bids and issued 13 contracts to deliver the EnerGuide for housing service across the province of Quebec. Each winning bidder has an office in the province of Quebec and each is required to provide the service in the language of the homeowners choice.
Once again, we are reviewing the bid documentation process to ensure fairness and will be dealing with this appropriately.
[Translation]
Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, curiously, complaints under the Official Languages Act have been filed, in the past, against two of the companies hired in the Outaouais region.
Is the example of poorly translated documentation at Public Works not proof that, although the Official Languages Act has been in effect for a number of years, it is not a very major concern to that department, and that francophones are paying the price?
[English]
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me assure all members of the House that this is a tremendous priority for our government to ensure that translation services are delivered in a reasonable way, and that in fact accuracy in all our endeavours is guaranteed throughout the process. We are taking this very seriously. I can assure the hon. member and all members of the House that we are dealing with this quickly.
* * *
(1440)
Technology Partnerships Canada
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today 15 companies in receipt of a Technology Partnerships Canada grant have directly violated the terms of their agreements. They have paid lobbyists large fees to help them secure money through this program. Despite the fact that they clearly violated the contract with the taxpayers of Canada, they still receive the balance of the TPC grant and the lobbyists may still be in possession of the money that they were given.
Why do companies that violate contracts with the Canadian taxpayer continue to receive public funds?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been reviewing TPC for over a year now. We have done some administrative audits. We have discussed it with the Auditor General in terms of our approach. The Auditor General completely agrees with what we are doing and how we are doing it.
We are recovering any moneys that were inappropriately paid out to lobbyists. These are companies that are in breach of their contract. We are acting swiftly, firmly and with zero tolerance to fix the problem.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is not true. The fact is that a company still gets the balance of the money that was given to it and lobbyists may in fact still have the money that was given to them by the company.
This is a program that spent over $2.5 billion but has recovered only 5%. Now we know about companies breaching their contracts and lobbyists receiving illegal payments. When will the minister finally release the audits of this program and state to the House how much money has been received by lobbyists against the contracts of this company, and how much money taxpayers are on the hook for through this program?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that over 80% of the companies that benefit from technology partnerships are small and medium sized businesses. The government is not in the business of killing companies. We are in the business of helping them implement technology and where there has been a breach of contract, we want that breach remedied.
* * *
Justice
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Coffin stole $1.5 million from Canadians, a theft made possible by the systematic corruption in the Liberal government. The courts sentenced Mr. Coffin to house arrest with a 9 p.m. curfew only on weekdays. That is pathetic enough, but this sentence is a direct result of changes made to the justice system by the Liberal government where it allows criminals to serve jail sentences at home in their living rooms.
Liberal laws and our justice system are failing Canadians every day. When is the government going to change them?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is not an issue of the law. This is a decision made by a judge. The laws are there for the purposes of any kind of penalty that a judge wishes to impose at this time.
[Translation]
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Paul Coffin defrauded Canadians out of $1.5 million. For this crime, he got a mere two years of house arrest. Even Martha Stewart spent time in jail.
In Canada, our liberal laws have failed Canadians and helped the friends of the Liberal Party. Is this the Liberal concept of justice?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this case is now before the courts. The provincial Crown is responsible for taking the necessary action.
* * *
International Aid
Mr. David Smith (Pontiac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has always led the way in the international debate on debt relief for the poor countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa. In June, Canada took part in the meeting of the G8 countries at which agreement was reached to wipe out the combined debt of the 18 poorest countries, totalling $40 million. This week, the G8 announced that it would be writing off the debt of at least another 18 poor countries, bringing the total to over $55 billion.
Could the Minister of Finance explain the details of this agreement to us?
The Speaker: The Minister of Finance.
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, international debt relief is an idea that Canada has championed in the world when the Prime Minister was Minister of Finance.
This past weekend the IMF and the World Bank board of governors approved the idea. The principles that they were operating on were principles that were initially defined by Canada. It amounts to debt relief for the poorest countries of the world totalling some $50 billion U.S. I am very pleased to say that a large part of the amount expected from Canada was provisioned in our budget in February. We will be the first out of the gate to respond to this international debt relief.
* * *
(1445)
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the CBC lockout has been going on for six weeks and the only thing we have heard from the heritage minister is radio static. This is not about a labour dispute. It is about the government's lack of vision, the government's indifference to a fundamental Canadian institution, and most of all, the minister's unwillingness to stand up and fight for a coherent broadcast policy for Canadians.
My question is simple. Will the minister hold CBC management to account and insist on the delivery of services that Canadians have already paid for?
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to the House that I have met with the decision-makers for both CBC and the union. In fact, they are in my office this very moment trying to put together an agreement which hopefully will make the CBC stronger and give Canadians what they want. We are working to ensure that labour and management can come up with a solution to bring these two parties together.
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that pretty much sums it up. The heritage minister cannot even stand up and talk about policies. Someone else has to do it.
[Translation]
Across Canada, Radio-Canada is the only service to the francophone community. By keeping quiet, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is holding the French-speaking people of Saskatchewan, Acadia and Northern Ontario hostage. This is unacceptable.
When is the minister going to do something?
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a dispute between management and the union. First, they are now in the process of trying to reach a joint agreement, and second, I would remind the hon. member that we have maintained the funding for CBC—Radio-Canada, and have added $60 million. I would ask them where they were when Bill C-48 was passed. Was there money in it for culture? No. For CBC—Radio-Canada? No. So we are doing our duty and do not need any lectures.
* * *
[English]
Income Trusts
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, by cancelling advance tax rulings on income trusts the finance minister is endangering the financial security of millions of Canadians, especially seniors. With the minister's announcement, Canadian businesses lost billions of dollars in market capital in one day and thousands of dollars were shaved off personal nest eggs of Canadians.
Why is the minister attacking all Canadians and especially seniors with his reckless behaviour on income trusts?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the conduct is anything but reckless. The government has indicated that we wish to have a consultation to develop policy options with respect to these matters. It is very important that the consultation be conducted in a rational manner. Therefore, we have taken the steps that we have. We intend to complete the consultation as quickly as possible and respond with the right policy response.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, not only is the finance minister attacking investors with his erratic behaviour on trusts, but now he is re-breaking his promise to reduce the tax load on Canada's largest employers.
Today the finance minister confirmed that he is being called to heel by the leader of the NDP. He has announced he is re-breaking his commitment to cut taxes for large employers. How can he do that when he claims that raising productivity is one of his many number one priorities?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we really cannot trust members of the opposition. Last spring they were supporting the budget until about April 21. There was a sudden blip in the polls. It did not amount to much and it did not last very long, but it set off this huge surge of Conservative electoral hormones. All the blood rushed from their heads. The Conservatives lost their judgment and they tried to kill the very budget that they now pretend to defend.
* * *
Softwood Lumber
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister must be feeling increasingly lonely in Saskatchewan. It is 46 days and counting since the Prime Minister promised the Premier of B.C. that he would call President Bush to discuss the softwood lumber dispute.
The Prime Minister has dithered and delayed, despite the long anticipated win for Canada. The Prime Minister had no problems discussing softwood with the Chinese Premier, but is yet to raise the issue with the U.S. President.
Why did the Prime Minister blow the opportunity to call immediately after the ruling? Why has he wasted the last six weeks?
(1450)
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me assure members that we are taking all steps possible to ensure that the NAFTA is respected. This includes litigation, retaliation and enhanced advocacy. The NAFTA must be respected.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister is refusing to engage in what has really happened here, which is a promise made and a promise broken. We have an industry completely deflated by the lack of government action after over $300 million in legal costs incurred by the Canadian side.
The Prime Minister is refusing to appoint a new minister of natural resources. By appointing a temporary minister, who is splitting his duties, the Prime Minister is showing his disregard for the critical natural resources sector of the economy.
Why is the Prime Minister putting politics before—
The Speaker: Order, please. Everyone likes to hear the government House leader, but we will not be able to with all this noise. We have to be able to hear the hon. minister.
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is completely wrong.
The government has been fighting for softwood right from the inception. It will continue to do so through the acting minister of natural resources, through the international trade minister, through the Prime Minister, and through this cabinet. We are fighting through every member of this caucus for softwood, while the opposition continues to play politics.
We look forward to finding a solution to this problem that includes the United States respecting the NAFTA agreement.
* * *
[Translation]
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are aware that the Minister of Labour met this morning with CBC representatives and staff, who are the victims of a lockout, and with the president of the corporation. This is more than just a labour dispute, because the CBC's desire to increase the number of temporary jobs is a direct threat to journalistic independence.
Did the minister take advantage of this morning's meeting with both parties to remind CBC management that creating precarious employment is unacceptable?
[English]
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, both parties are willing to negotiate. They are in fact negotiating at this moment.
I will be meeting with both parties after question period to find out what success they have made to date. We are determined to ensure that they are at the table to make the necessary compromises with regard to the issues at hand and let the collective bargaining process work.
The government is there to assist them. They are willing to negotiate and willing to make the compromises necessary. We are hopeful about this state of events.
[Translation]
Mr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Canadian Heritage realize that the outrageous increase in precarious employment the CBC has in mind will, in the short term, threaten journalistic independence and the very principle of the public's fundamental right to objective and quality information?
[English]
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what they do not understand over there.
The parties are at the table. They are trying to negotiate through these particular issues. That is what we want. We want to bring both parties to the table. We have had them there for the past three weeks. I have them in my offices right now. They are working hard to resolve these issues, and hopefully that is what we all want to happen.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has done nothing to implement its impossibly conceived campaign promise to boost the armed forces by 8,000 troops.
Just like its improbable five year budget increase, the government is planning for a troop increase that is scheduled to begin three years from now. The last time I checked, the Prime Minister promised an election within six months. This is just another election promise without action.
The armed forces are desperately overstretched and overworked. They need more than rhetoric. Why will the government not fulfill its promise to the forces?
(1455)
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member had spent the summer as I did, going around talking to the members of our armed forces, who are extremely grateful to the government for stepping forward and putting into place a defence policy they respect, a new chief who is inspiring them and money to get them in the budget. We are recruiting members and the morale is higher than it has ever been before.
I hate to disappoint the hon. member, but we are going in the right direction and he knows it, so I would not play politics with this one. This government is delivering for our armed forces in a way nobody has in this country for years.
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is fiddle-faddle. DND is one of the most bureaucratic departments of government. It spends most of its time supporting endless administrative processes. That is why DND is having such difficulty meeting the Liberals' impulsively conceived recruiting goal. The training and recruiting system is simply constipated.
Other than issuing a costly report talking about what needs to be done, the Liberals have actually done nothing to achieve administrative efficiency. How can the government hope to meet its recruiting goal without slashing the red tape at DND?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not been in the House long enough to remember that another hon. member in this House said fuddle duddle, not fiddle-faddle, but as you may recall, that called for some interference from the Chair so I hesitate to go in that direction.
I do want to say that I will go back to where I came from in the first place. I urge the hon. member to talk to the troops. They believe we are on the right track. Of course we have problems. Do we need to speed it up? We will speed it up. Can we do better? We will do better. We are on the right track. I am proud to be the defence minister and I am proud to lead our troops as we go ahead.
* * *
Infrastructure
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday past, along with my colleague from Sydney—Victoria, I was delighted to welcome the Prime Minister and the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities to Cape Breton for the signing of the Nova Scotia federal gas tax agreement. The excitement and expectation shared by provincial and municipal partners was obvious and much anticipation is now held by all Nova Scotians.
Could the minister of state please tell the House what benefits the gas tax agreement will bring to the people of Cape Breton and indeed all of Nova Scotia?
Hon. John Godfrey (Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the deal we signed last Friday will provide over $145 million in five years to Nova Scotia. Those municipalities will be able to use the money for clean water, for waste water, for waste management and for all of their infrastructure needs.
Let me quote the former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the mayor of New Glasgow, who said to the Prime Minister as we signed the deal, “Thank you for your vision. Thank you for recognizing the needs of Canada's communities...”.
* * *
Automobile Industry
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the auto industry is the largest manufacturing industry in this country, employing hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Ford and Chrysler have already negotiated unprecedented job cuts and plant closings. A strike is possible at General Motors.
Last Christmas, the industry minister promised an auto strategy within two weeks. In the spring he told us that he was just putting on the finishing touches. Where is this elusive auto strategy?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been working in partnership with the industry. There is a document that the Canadian auto partnership group put out, called a visions document. I am prepared to go to the industry committee at any time it is convenient to the committee and give a full presentation on auto, aerospace and several other sectors as well.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is the largest manufacturing industry in the country and all it is getting is empty promises.
Canadian workers are now paying the price for Liberal inaction. When will the government wake up and realize that the price of inaction is the loss of thousands of auto jobs in this sector?
(1500)
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I really find it difficult to live with this kind of foolishness. The auto sector all over the world and all over North America is going through wrenching adjustments.
Here in Canada, the auto sector is actually doing relatively well. In fact, the Canadian Auto Workers have increased by 28,000 workers over the last few years. We have put $355 million into attracting assembly plants here in Ontario and we have levered that into over $4.5 billion in investment, so the member is all wet.
* * *
[Translation]
Older Workers
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when I was touring the regions of Quebec this summer, all the workers I met were expecting the government to take the necessary steps to follow up on the unanimous vote by the members of this House to implement income support measures for older workers who have been subject to mass lay-offs.
What explanation does the government have for not yet acting on the unanimous decision taken by the House of Commons this past June 14 as the result of a vote?
[English]
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been follow-up. The department is working with the province of Quebec in particular and with other provinces and numerous departments to develop a strategy for older workers. That includes temporary income support measures.
* * *
Fisheries
Mr. Todd Norman Russell (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the shrimp fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador is very important to my constituents and to the men, women and families who depend on it for a livelihood, but European tariffs on shrimp continue to harm this vital industry. Will the Minister of International Trade tell the House what actions the government has taken against these tariffs?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to thank the member from Labrador for his important question. I commend him and his colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador for making this a priority issue.
Since December 2004 I have raised this issue repeatedly with the EU trade commissioner and our EU counterparts. I have met with the shrimp industry in Newfoundland. My officials have ongoing meetings with the Fisheries Council of Canada and the Association of Seafood Producers. In addition, I have instructed our EU trade commissioners to make it a priority issue to get those shrimp into Europe.
In the WTO, we are working through the NAMA provisions on a sectoral basis to try to create free trade in fisheries. I spoke with an EU official this morning and I will be meeting with the premier and the fisheries minister this afternoon.
* * *
[Translation]
Child Care
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal government reached an agreement on child care with six provinces, but it is still dragging its feet with regard to Quebec, by seeking to subject it to Canada-wide standards.
Quebec's minister for intergovernmental affairs, Benoît Pelletier, was extremely clear when he said, “This is not negotiable; we will not budge one iota”.
Yet, the Prime Minister had said, in the last election, that Quebec would be able to get its cheque with no strings attached. What explanation does the Prime Minister have for the fact that he is now reneging on his election promise?
[English]
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House many times before, we have been very respectful of the jurisdiction of all the provinces, including the province of Quebec. We have been very respectful of the position it holds in terms of childcare in this country and also in terms of Quebec being an inspiration for the program that has been introduced. Our negotiations are ongoing.
What the hon. member should know is that the money has flowed for this first year through a trust fund, so the people of Quebec and the government of Quebec are receiving their money even in advance of any deal that would be signed.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Sharif Hassan Sheikh Aden, Speaker of the Transitional Federal Parliament, Somali Republic.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Speaker: I would also like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency K. Natwar Singh, External Affairs Minister of the Republic of India.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
* * *
(1505)
Hon. James Jerome
[Tributes]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were all saddened this summer by the passing of the former Speaker of the House of Commons, the Hon. James Jerome.
[Translation]
Mr. Jerome was an exceptional MP and Speaker of the House and an inspiration to Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Jerome was first elected to the House of Commons for the electoral district of Sudbury in the general election of 1968. He was re-elected in 1972, 1974 and 1979. He served as Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council and as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons from 1970 to 1972.
During the minority Parliament elected in 1972, he served as chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, a position in which he distinguished himself as a fair and impartial arbiter in a difficult and contentious committee.
Following the 1974 election, he was a natural and a popular choice to be chosen Speaker of the House. He was returned as Speaker following the election of 1979, becoming the first Speaker in history to be chosen from the opposition side of the House.
As Speaker, Mr. Jerome was responsible for a number of important innovations. First and foremost, it fell to him to preside over the introduction of the televising of the proceedings of the House. His pioneering guidance became the standard on which many other legislatures based their subsequent introduction of broadcasting, including the United States Congress and the British House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker Jerome also initiated the modernization of the administration of the House of Commons. Among his most enduring contributions was the development of the House of Commons page program.
Following the dissolution of Parliament in 1979, Mr. Jerome was appointed Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada, where he served with distinction until his retirement.
Mr. Jerome is fondly remembered, not only for his wisdom and impartiality, but also for his warmth and unfailing good humour, good humour which contributed greatly to making Parliament more effective and, perhaps more importantly, more civil.
To his wife Barry and his children and grandchildren, we offer our sympathies on their loss and our thanks for sharing him with us.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada and my leader, I would also like to pay tribute to the Hon. James Jerome who passed away this summer.
Mr. Jerome was born in Kingston in 1933 and studied law at Osgoode Hall in Toronto. He later opened a legal practice in Sudbury where he served on that city's council.
Mr. Jerome served as Speaker of the House of Commons from 1974 to 1979. The House of Commons at the time obviously felt then, as it does today, that a lawyer born in Kingston would make a pretty good Speaker.
I never met Mr. Jerome although as a House leader I have come to know former Speakers through their various rulings which are very important to the evolution of the rules of the House of Commons.
Mr. Jerome was the first Speaker to serve during the reign of two governments of different political stripes and the first opposition member to preside over the House. This reflected his reputation as an impartial chair, a reputation that was cut at the committee level when he was chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The committee dealt with highly controversial bills, including abolition of capital punishment and wiretap legislation. He managed to keep the respect of all parties as he stickhandled his way through procedural disputes.
When Prime Minister Trudeau asked James Jerome to become Speaker in 1974, he neglected to consult the leader of the opposition before making his nomination. As a result, the official opposition refused to second the nomination. Mr. Stanfield emphasized, however, his quarrel was with the government and not with the Speaker who he said had his party's full support.
Here we have another similarity to the other Speaker from Kingston. As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, one of your appointments as chair occupant was opposed by the opposition as well. In fact, the government was forced to invoke closure. As with Mr. Jerome, the opposition's quarrel was with the government and not the deputy speaker who also enjoyed their full support.
Mr. Jerome's most significant change to the House of Commons, as we just heard, was bringing in television coverage in 1978, something most of us today take for granted. He had to establish rules for broadcasting and eventually they were copied by other parliaments around the world.
While very few of us get the privilege of presiding over this House, there is one privilege we can all share with Mr. Jerome and that is the privilege of serving our constituents.
Mr. Jerome represented the people of Sudbury, first elected as their member in 1968 and re-elected in subsequent elections, his political career only ending when he decided not to run in 1980.
He went on to be appointed in 1980 to the post of Associate Chief Justice and Head of the Trial Division of the Federal Court where he served for some 18 years.
Mr. Jerome served this House with competence and impartiality. He served his constituents with dedication and his country with commitment.
Mr. Jerome's contributions to the House will be remembered and appreciated for many years to come.
On behalf of the Conservative Party, I extend my heartfelt condolences to Mr. Jerome's family and his many friends.
(1510)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is always a very touching moment when we honour someone who has sat here, in this House, and who has devoted much of his life and professional career to the service of his fellow citizens.
Not only was Mr. Jerome a former member of this House but he also had an impressive legal career. He was seen by everyone as impartial when he sat in the chair that you now occupy, Mr. Speaker.
He was in fact remarkably impartial. This is a trait that everyone here respects in the Speaker of the House of Commons.
He was evidently a fair and impartial man. He was someone who had the courage, in 1973, when he was just the chair of a committee, to turn down an amendment that was proposed with government support but that was contrary to the laws and regulations in effect and would have limited the role of a parliamentary committee.
For this act alone, an act of courage if there ever was one, I think that Speaker Jerome will be remembered as a great Speaker and a fair-minded person. We will remember him not only as a jurist, judge, member of Parliament serving his fellow citizens, and Speaker of this House but also as an impartial human being, the father of a family and a husband who made a very positive mark.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to pay my respects to the members of his family, his friends, and all those who knew him and had the good fortune to work with him.
(1515)
[English]
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus, I am pleased to join with my colleagues from other parties in giving thanks for the life and work of the former Speaker of the House, James Jerome.
We pay particular tribute to his contribution to this House and to his distinguished ability as Speaker.
As one of the few left who sat in the House while Speaker Jerome was in the chair, I can certainly attest to his capacities in that role and to the respect which he enjoyed on both sides of the chamber from those who had longer experiences of his leadership in the House. Thanks to the peculiar dynamics of the minority Parliament of 1979, I had a short-lived experience of Speaker Jerome. I certainly remember my first question. I asked it of a future Speaker of the House, John Fraser. When I got what actually passed for an answer from the minister, I was denied a supplementary.
I say this by way of harkening back to a parliamentary culture, symbolized by Speaker Jerome who was the last Speaker to enjoy the benefits of such a culture, in which the Speaker felt free to exercise more discretion and individual judgment over who was to be recognized and who was not and in what context. Speaker Jerome certainly exercised that judgment with much wisdom, humour and discernment. In doing so, he served Canadian democracy and the institution of Parliament with great distinction.
We hope that the memory of the esteem in which he was held will be comfort to his family and we express our sincere condolences to them.
The Speaker: I wish to advise hon. members that I had the honour of representing this House at the funeral of the hon. James Jerome during the summer. I had the opportunity to meet with some members of the family on that occasion.
I am delighted that members have chosen to have this tribute to such a distinguished Canadian. I now invite hon. members to rise for a moment of silence out of respect for our former Speaker.
[A moment of silence observed]
* * *
Business of Supply
Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
The Speaker: As hon. members know, the Standing Orders set out the number of supply days in each supply period. The Standing Orders also set out for the Speaker a formula for calculating the addition of supply days when the House sits on days it is not scheduled to sit and another formula for subtracting supply days when the House does not sit on days when it is scheduled to.
We find ourselves in the unusual situation where both formulae could be applied.
[Translation]
Since the end of the last supply period , that is June 23, the House has sat two additional days, namely June 27 and 28.
[English]
Similarly, the House, in resuming its sittings today, did so five sitting days later than usual.
The Chair has decided to view this as a net reduction of three sitting days for this supply period. According to the formula contained in paragraph (b) of Standing Order 81(10), a reduction of three sitting days is insufficient to cause a reduction in the number of supply days.
Accordingly it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(10) a total of seven days will be allotted for the supply period ending December 10, 2005.
* * *
Report of Chief Electoral Officer
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the administration of the Labrador byelection held on May 24, 2005.
[Translation]
This document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1520)
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (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 three petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
Committees of the House
Procedure and House Affairs
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 45th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, concerning the work of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), this report contains the list of items added to the order of precedence under private members' business on June 17 that should not be designated non-votable.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), this report is deemed concurred in.
* * *
Criminal Code
Hon. Bill Graham (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women) moved for leave to introduce Bill S-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Cultural Property Export and Import Act.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
Spirit Drinks Trade Act
Hon. David Emerson (for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario)) moved for leave to introduce Bill S-38, An Act respecting the implementation of international trade commitments by Canada regarding spirit drinks of foreign countries.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
Petitions
Canadian National Railways
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this petition is presented on behalf of the many concerned citizens in Biggar and surrounding communities who are deeply troubled about the proposed closure of the Biggar CN terminal by Canadian National Railways.
The increase in shift times, travel times and deadline pressure on train crews is especially troubling. Moving the terminal to Saskatoon would remove the safe rest location and increase the likelihood of fatigue related accidents. After CN's disastrous accident prone summer, this is a terrible move.
Once again, CN's respect for rural Canadian communities and its employees is being blatantly shown. I totally support the affected communities and the CN employees. Therefore, I present this petition on their behalf.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Viking, Alberta on marriage.
The petitioners acknowledge that marriage is the best foundation for families and for the raising of children and that the institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman is being challenged. They acknowledge that the House decided in 1999 that marriage should remain a union between a man and a woman.
They therefore petition Parliament to reinstate marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
* * *
(1525)
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to present a petition from hundreds of Canadians who recognize that the CBC, our public broadcaster, is fundamental to the cultural identity of Canada.
The petitioners are very concerned that the CBC management locked out 5,500 employees on August 15. They point out that those employees want to return to work to provide Canadians with high quality, made in Canada programs that we have come to expect on the CBC.
They call upon Parliament to direct the Minister of Labour to immediately order CBC to end the lockout of their employees and restore regular programming. We certainly hope that is the case.
* * *
Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to present a petition today, the first of many I will present to the House, calling upon Parliament to immediately enact legislation to grant automatic citizenship to those minors adopted from other countries by Canadian citizens, with this citizenship being immediately granted upon the finalization of the adoption.
It is an illogical and inefficient use of federal resources to add these adopted infants and children to the tremendous backlog of citizenship applications yet to be processed. This summer, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration promised to introduce legislation to grant automatic citizenship to children adopted from other countries.
Therefore, on behalf of these petitioners from Victoria, Vancouver, Salmo, Castlegar and other communities in British Columbia, I call upon him to do so as soon as possible and remove this undue burden upon adoptive parents.
* * *
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am honoured to table a petition signed by hundreds of B.C. residents, including folks from my own riding of Burnaby and from Vancouver and New Westminster. These folks appreciate the huge contribution made to Canada by locked out CBC workers and know that the CBC is fundamental to our experience and understanding of Canadian identity. They call on the government to act immediately and decisively to end the lockout of CBC employees.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have petitions here asking Parliament to define marriage in federal law as the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Carley's Law
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC): I have many more petitions, Mr. Speaker, asking that Parliament assemble to vote in favour of Bill C-275, an act to amend the Criminal Code (failure to stop at scene of accident), to make sentencing for hit and run offenders more severe. Bill C-275 is long gone and was voted down but will re-enter the House.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have received a petition that I am pleased to present to the House. It is from a number of constituents in my riding of Mississauga South and it is on the subject matter of marriage, notwithstanding that we have already disposed of Bill C-38. The petitioners want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that they do not believe marriage is an institution that does not implicate human rights, that it is the best social unit for the purpose of creating and nurturing the next generation of children, and that they are concerned Bill C-38 will weaken the institution of marriage and will have unforeseen, profound and negative ramifications for children.
The point of their petition is to encourage the government to ensure that the impact on our children as a consequence of changing the definition of marriage is monitored and to ensure that there are no adverse circumstances as a result of that change.
* * *
[Translation]
Questions on the Order Paper
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 153, 156, 161, 163, 164, 167, 169, 170 and 173.
[Text]
Question No. 153--Mr. Brian Pallister:
For the years 1994 to 2004, were any contracts awarded by VIA Rail Canada to the following companies: Lafleur Communications, Groupaction, Group Everest, Media I.D.A. Vision Inc., Tremblay Guittet Communications, Gosselin, Vickers and Benson, BCP Group Ltd., Gervais, Gagnon, Covington and Associates, La Groupe Polygone, EKOS and Earnscliffe, and if so, (i) what contracts were awarded, (ii) what was the date of the contracts, (iii) what were the amounts of the contracts, (iv) what were the contracts for, (v) what was the name of the supplier, and (vi) for each contract awarded, was the contract awarded via an open competition or was it sole sourced?
Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to sponsorship, VIA Rail Canada Inc.(VIA) is routinely solicited by event organizers and agencies who manage events in various locations across Canada. Criteria used to determine whether VIA will sponsor events are a function of the location of the event, what other communication activities VIA has planned to coincide with the event in question, and whether the target audience for the event is consistent with VIA’s target market.
For the years 1994 to 2004, VIA entered into sponsorship agreements with the following companies:
Crown Corporation
|
Source
|
Value
|
Date of Contract
|
Rationale and Procurement Method
|
VIA Rail Canada Inc.
|
Groupaction Gosselin Strategic Communications Inc. on behalf of the Government of Canada
|
$75,000+tx
|
January 22, 2001
|
VIA's sponsorship portion of the 2001 Canada Snow Sculpture Competition.
|
VIA Rail Canada Inc.
|
Gosselin Public Relations Inc.
|
$75,000+tx
|
January 31, 2002
|
VIA's sponsorship portion of the 2002 Canada Snow Sculpture Competition.
|
VIA Rail Canada Inc.
|
Everest Commandites (G.E.C.M.) Inc
|
$215,000+tx
|
March 4, 2002
|
VIA's sponsorship portion of the 2002 Les Mercuriades gala (l'Association des Chambres de Commerce du Québec mandated Everest for the organization of the event).
|
VIA Rail Canada Inc.
|
Everest Publicité Promotions Inc.
|
$75,000+tx
|
March 25, 2003
|
VIA's sponsorship portion of the 2003 Les Mercuriades gala (l'Association des Chambres de Commerce du Québec mandated Everest for the organization of the event).
|
VIA Rail Canada Inc.
|
Everest Commandites (G.E.C.M.) Inc.
|
$35,000+tx
|
July 28 2000
|
VIA's sponsorship portion of the Mission Sydney program.
|
VIA Rail Canada Inc.
|
Everest Publicité Promotions Inc.
|
$15,000+tx
|
July 23, 2003
|
VIA's sponsorship portion of "La Grande Fête des Enfants 2003".
|
With respect to joint advertising programs, the Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC) has a mandate to develop tourism industry-wide advertising programs to encourage Canadians and citizens of selected foreign countries to visit Canada. The CTC develops these programs and solicits industry participation through its advertising agencies. Up until 2003, the agencies for the CTC were Vickers & Benson and BCP Group Ltd.
VIA issued multiple purchase orders to participate in the industry-wide program, along with other companies in the tourism industry, as follows:
VIA Rail Canada Inc.
|
BCP, advertising agency for Canadian Tourism Commission
|
$1,001,582
|
Multiple purchase orders
|
Joint advertising programs with the Canadian Tourism Commission (1999-2003).
|
VIA Rail Canada Inc.
|
Vickers & Benson
|
$811,008
|
Multiple purchase orders
|
Joint advertising programs with the Canadian Tourism Commission.
|
With respect to contracts for communication services, VIA entered into a contract with Publicité Martin following a competitive tender process and an agency review. Publicité Martin subcontracted work to Lafleur Communication Marketing.
VIA Rail Canada Inc.
|
Lafleur Communication Marketing (1994-2004)
|
$23,283,368
(Multiple projects)
|
January 1, 1997
|
Advertising agency of record. Contract awarded to Publicité Martin following an agency review/tender process, effective July 1, 1987.
Publicité Martin sub-contracted to Lafleur Communication
|
Question No. 156--Ms. Jean Crowder:
With regard to the re-evaluation by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of 2,4-D for use on lawns and turf: (a) what is the specific process used to evaluate this pesticide, including any deliberations on why it was completed ahead of the new, stronger regulations for the Pest Control Products Act of 2002 being promulgated; (b) how closely was the Canadian Environmental Protection Act followed, specifically, what analyses were provided regarding dioxins with two or more chlorine atoms that may contaminate 2,4-D during the lifetime of the product; (c) what studies looked specifically at the effect on the elderly and on children; and (d) has the Pest Management Regulatory Agency issued a second Information Note retracting the statement “that 2,4-D can be used safely on lawns and turf” as suggested by the chair of the Standing Committee on Health?
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows:
|
(a) Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) committed to undertake a priority review of the turf uses of 2,4 D and other lawn care pesticides as part of its “Action Plan on Urban Use Pesticides”, announced in 2000 by the Minister of Health in response to public concerns regarding the safe use of these products in urban settings. The publication “Action Plan on Urban Use Pesticides” (http://www.pmra arla.gc.ca/english/pdf/hlawns/hl ActionPlan e.pdf) includes additional details of the plan. |
|
PMRA’s general re evaluation process is outlined in the publication “PMRA Re evaluation Program” (DIR2001 03). The scientific assessment of 2,4 D would not have differed if it had been completed under the new Pest Control Products Act. Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency has been routinely using the modern risk assessment methods enshrined in the new Act in its current reviews of both new and older chemicals. These modern risk assessment methods include an aggregate assessment that takes into account pesticide exposure from all sources, including food, water and pesticide use in homes and schools, and considers cumulative effects of pesticides that act in the same way. Also, the sensitivities of vulnerable groups such as infants and children are considered, and extra safety factors are applied to protect children. |
|
PMRA’s assessment was conducted by its highly qualified scientists. The re evaluation of lawn and turf uses of 2,4 D was based on a comprehensive review of the considerable information available on 2,4 D, including: |
|
1. an extensive proprietary database including laboratory animal studies to determine potential health effects and studies that examine potential effects on the environment; |
|
2. published scientific information; these include reports, epidemiological studies and all other relevant scientific information published in scientific journals and other publicly available documentation;
|
|
3. foreign reviews results of other countries scientific assessments of 2,4 D including the United States, the European Union, New Zealand and the World Health Organization; and, |
|
4. use pattern information collected by the PMRA
|
|
The broad range of scientific information examined by the PMRA included relevant data utilized by non regulatory groups, such as the Ontario College of Family Physicians in their April 2004 report. That report focussed on a subset of epidemiology studies from the public literature, but the authors did not have all available data to conduct a human health risk assessment. The examination of animal toxicity data from internationally accepted guideline studies using doses well above those to which humans are typically exposed to, combined with exposure data obtained from well designed studies, is currently the best methodology available for assessing risks to human health. |
|
For 2,4 D, external experts were also asked to comment on various aspects of PMRA’s review in order to provide a broader perspective on the assessment than the usual internal review process. This 5 member science advisory panel included experts in their fields of epidemiology, exposure assessment, human toxicology, and environmental toxicology. The Ppnel generally agreed with the PMRA’s assessment. A summary of the panel’s findings and recommendations was included in the public consultation document “Proposed Acceptability for Continuing Registration” (PACR2005 01), Re evaluation of Lawn and Turf Uses of (2,4 Dichlorophenoxy) acetic Acid [2,4 D]”. |
|
The PMRA will carefully consider the numerous comments received in response to PACR2005 01, revise the assessment as required, and communicate the final decision to the public in a re-evaluation decision document as soon as the process is completed. |
|
(b) As part of the re evaluation of the lawn and turf uses of 2,4 D, the PMRA took into account the toxic substances management policy and followed its Rrgulatory directive DIR99 03. The former is the federal government policy that directs the determination and management of Track 1 substances (chemicals that are toxic, persistent, bioaccumulative and anthropogenic) and is consistent with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Polychlorinated dioxins substituted in at least the 2,3,7,8 positions are track 1 substances. |
|
In 1982, Agriculture Canada's Pesticide Division (now Health Canada’s PMRA) had randomly collected from the marketplace forty one (41) 2,4 D amine end products and seventeen (17) 2,4 D ester end products for testing of dioxins. Of these fifty eight (58) samples, only six 2,4 D amines and one 2,4 D ester end products were contaminated with either dichlorodioxin or trichlorodioxin at levels marginally higher than 10 ppb (parts per billion parts of 2,4 D), the production limit established in Agriculture Canada’s Pesticides Division Trade Memo R 1 216 published in April 15, 1983. 2,3,7,8 TCDD was not detected at limit of detection of 1 ppb. To demonstrate that today’s products do not contain Track 1 substances such as dioxins, above the level of quantification, the PMRA is requiring the manufacturers to submit data of 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 2,3,7,8 TCDF and their respective higher substituted chlorinated congeners to the limits of quantitation (0.1 ppb) in five recent batches of all technical products as part of the data requirements from the re evaluation of 2,4 D. |
|
(c) It is important to distinguish between toxicity data (studies that are specifically designed to elicit a toxic effect) and exposure data (monitoring and biomonitoring data in humans such as in workers & bystanders including children and the elderly that occur as a result of normal use). Since its inception, the PMRA has not used toxicity studies in humans for risk assessment in which human subjects are intentionally dosed with pesticides to identify or quantify their effects. Human studies of this nature that have been brought to our attention, have been used solely in a supplementary manner thus far, to confirm that the animal model is an appropriate surrogate for assessment purposes. As such, the PMRA does not condone the use of human subjects for pesticide testing to establish no observed adverse effect levels (see below) for assessing risk for new or existing products. However, the PMRA does evaluate monitoring and biomonitoring data in humans (e.g., exposure data from workers, bystanders, victims of accidents), if available. |
|
The PMRA uses animal data as a surrogate for understanding the hazard profile (i.e., toxicity) of a given chemical and for establishing reference doses for the purpose of conducting human health risk assessments. Toxicity data from a number of different mammalian species including mice, rats, rabbits and dogs are examined, in order to assess cross species similarities and differences, as well as species sensitivity. Studies examine short and long term effects, as well as the potential for a chemical to induce birth defects, reproductive effects, potential sensitivity in the young and cancer. These studies are conducted at doses many times higher than what humans are exposed to, in order to understand the toxicity profile for a given chemical. Typically, the most sensitive species is used as the indicator species for human toxicity and health risk assessment, unless there are sufficient data to indicate another species is more appropriate. For human health risk assessment, safety factors are applied to the dose where no effects were observed in animal studies (i.e. the “no effect level” noted above) to create a reference dose. This reference dose is, at minimum, 100 times below the dose where no toxic effects were observed in animal tests. The safety factors account for interspecies extrapolation from animals to humans, for intraspecies variability, as well as for any other concerns identified in the toxicology data such as potential sensitivity of the young. This approach is consistent with that of other regulatory authorities that base human health risk assessments on animal toxicity data. Retrospective analyses indicate that this approach is protective of the human population. |
|
The amount of exposure to humans from all relevant routes (oral, inhalation, absorption through the skin) and pathways (dietary intake, drinking water, residential exposures) is determined using a variety of data. Demographic data obtained from survey information are used to generate gender and age specific profiles for body weight, food consumption and activity patterns. This includes data on infants, toddlers, youth and adult sub populations. The demographic data are combined with the amount of pesticide residue present in air, drinking water, food and treated areas such as turf. As an example, the unique physiology, behaviours and play habits of children, such as their body weight and hand to mouth contact while playing on treated grass are considered together, when determining how much exposure they encounter. Residue data are obtained from a variety of sources including environmental surveillance, food residue monitoring programs and from both published and unpublished scientific studies designed to assess residue transfer to humans that may result from contact with treated areas. To be protective of human health, conservative estimates are used to obtain upper bound exposure levels. A listing of published human exposure studies considered specifically in the 2,4 D turf re evaluation is provided in PACR 2005 01. |
|
The PMRA then conducts a quantitative risk assessment in order to integrate the results of the hazard assessment with those of an exposure assessment. This means that the level of exposure (or dose) that an individual, including a child, may encounter from a specific pesticide is compared to the reference dose that is established from the toxicity data. In the case of 2,4 D use on lawns, the PMRA required that the level of exposure to various sub populations be at least 300 to 1000 times below the dose where no toxic effects were observed in animal tests. Thus, the amount of 2,4 D to which humans are exposed through diet, drinking water and contacting treated grass is 100s to 1000s of times less than the dose that causes any toxic effect in animal studies. |
|
(d) The information note clearly invites stakeholders to provide any additional information that may be relevant to the re evaluation. As indicated earlier, PMRA’s review did determine that 2,4 D does not pose unacceptable risks for lawn and turf use when label directions are followed, and proposed the continuing registration of 2,4 D products. The public has responded to PACR2005 01 with numerous comments, some of which include additional published data and information. After a thorough evaluation of all comments received during the comment period, the PMRA will revise the assessment as required and communicate the final decision to all stakeholders in a re-evaluation decision document and a revised Information Note
. |
Question No. 161--Mr. Brian Pallister:
Can the government provide a list of all requests made by Canada Post to André Ouellet, from September 23, 2004, to the present, that call for Mr. Ouellet to provide information to assist with the Canada Revenue Agency audit, including: (a) the form and date of each request; (b) the Canada Post employee making the request; and (c) if or when a response was received from Mr. Ouellet?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows:
Form and ate of Request
|
Canada Post representative making the request
|
Date of response received from André Ouellet
|
Letter dated September 23, 2004
|
Vivian Albo
Chairman of the Board
|
No response
|
Letter dated October 20, 2004
|
Gerard Power
Vice President
General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
|
No response
|
Letter dated November 10, 2004
|
Gerard Power
Vice President
General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
|
Documents provided on December 2, 2004
|
Various verbal discussions took place between December 2, 2004 and June 6, 2005 between legal counsel for Canada Post and André Ouellet in respect of documentation of expenses incurred while André Ouellet was President and CEO of Canada Post. No further documentation was provided subsequent to December 2, 2004.
|
Letter dated June 16, 2005
|
Legal Counsel for Canada Post
|
On June 21, 2005, André Ouellet responded that he had no further documentation in his possession or under his control relating to the expenses under review by the Canada Revenue Agency.
|
Question No. 163--Mr. Ken Epp:
With regard to the formal dinner held for the Queen on May 24, 2005, in Edmonton and the procedure for invitations for such: (a) were official invitations sent out; (b) what were the criteria for being in receipt of an invitation; and (c) what was the total cost for this event?
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows:
|
(a) Invitations were mailed to guests figuring on the list provided to Optimum Public Relations, the company contracted to organize the event on behalf of the federal government. This is true for all guests except those from the House of Commons. Eighty-six seats were reserved for MPs from all parties. In these instances, party whips were all asked to extend invitations to their members. |
|
(b) The criteria were based on the following categories: aboriginal and cultural groups, academic/education, arts and culture, agricultural sector, business, community leaders and representatives, core group, government/public sector, guest labour groups, media, military, non-profit sector, northlands park, order of canada, political leaders, professionals, religious leaders, sports, veterans and youth. |
|
(c) Based on the final calculations, the total cost of the dinner hosted by the Prime Minsiter in honour of Her Majesty The Queen in Edmonton was $338,565.79 |
Question No. 164--Mr. Nathan Cullen:
With regards to the approvals of further developments of open-net fish farms along the West Coast, has Environment Canada initiated a comprehensive study under the Environmental Assessment Act and, if not, why?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Environment Canada, EC, has not initiated comprehensive studies under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, CEAA, for open-net fish farms along the west coast because EC does not have a decision making role, i.e. funding, issuance of a permit or authorization etc. related to fish farms that would require an environmental assessment under CEAA.
An environmental assessment is required under CEAA if the issuance of a federal authorization under the Fisheries Act or the Navigable Waters Protection Act is needed in order for a fish-farm to proceed. In that case, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, or Transport Canada are the responsible authorities under CEAA. Environment Canada provides expert advice to the responsible authorities related to our mandate, for example, shellfish water quality protection, toxics pollution prevention, and migratory birds.
Fish farms are not listed in the comprehensive study list regulations and therefore a screening level assessment is conducted by the responsible authority rather than a comprehensive study.
CEAA: Nil Reply
Question No. 167--Mr. Greg Thompson:
With regards to the International Ship and Port Security Code (ISPS Code): (a) have all ports in Canada implemented the ISPS Code and if not, can the government provide the names of the ports that are not in compliance and the date that they will be in compliance; (b) what requirements are in place to audit the ports as required by the ISPS Code, what authority is required to do the audits and are the audits required to be done by independent sources; (c) have all canadian flagged vessels implemented the ISPS Code; and (d) have all foreign flagged vessels implemented the ISPS Code?
Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, In December 2002 the International Maritime Organization, IMO adopted the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code ISPS Code and other amendments to the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea Convention, 1974, SOLAS Convention to enhance the international framework for the deterrence, prevention and detection of acts that threaten security in the marine transportation sector. All IMO contracting governments, including Canada, have adopted the ISPS code in July 2004 and have the necessary national regulations in place.
The Canadian Marine Transportation Security Regulations, MTSR introduce new security requirements for the marine transportation industry under section 5 of the Marine Transportation Security Act, MTSA, and implement all provisions of the ISPS code.
|
(a) Yes, all 423 ports and marine facilities in Canada to which the MTSR apply have implemented the ISPS code. The MTSR applies to all Canadian ports and marine facilities serving vessels covered by the MTSR, engaged on a voyage from a port in one country to a port in another country. Others may be added in the future, as they are required to apply the MTSR. |
|
(b) Canadian vessels, marine facilities and port authorities to which the MTSR apply are required to develop and implement a risk-based security plan developed from information obtained in security assessments of vulnerability and threat. Once submitted, the plans are reviewed by Transport Canada Marine Security Inspectors. An official certificate of compliance or international ship security certificate is issued upon approval of the plans. |
|
The MTSR requires that audits be conducted by ports authorities and the operators of marine facilities against their approved and implemented security plans to determine whether there are any deficiencies or changes in security threats, procedures, responsibilities of personnel, operations or operator that require amendments to be made to the plans. Marine facility operators are required to perform internal audits annually or if there is a change in operator or modifications to the marine facility or its operations. There is no requirement for port authorities to conduct annual audits, although they are required to continually evaluate marine transportation security and to include a plan for periodically reviewing, auditing and updating the port security plan. If changes are required to the security plan following an audit, operators are required to submit an amendment to the minister of Transport for approval within 30 days. Port authorities and the operators of marine facilities may call upon independent sources to perform internal audits for their own purposes. |
|
Transport Canada Marine Security Inspectors conduct inspections of marine facilities and ports to ensure compliance with MTSR, and ISPS Code requirements, including the continued validity and implementation of security plans. These inspections are conducted under the authority of the Marine Transportation Security Act. Independent sources are not used for these inspections. |
|
(c) All Canadian vessels to which the MTSR apply are in compliance and have received an international ship security certificate, ISSC, and Canadian vessel security certificate, VSC. There are approximately 213 Canadian vessels to which the MTSR apply. |
|
(d) Most countries have developed regulations and have implemented the ISPS code for their vessels and ports. Any foreign vessel wishing to enter into Canadian waters must have an ISSC issued under their flag state
. |
Question No. 169--Mr. Yvon Godin:
Was the herbicide Agent Orange tested or used at the Tracadie range when it belonged to the government and if so, when and under which circumstances?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, based on a thorough search of available information, Agent orange was neither tested nor used on the Tracadie Range, when it belonged to the government.
Question No. 170--Mr. Brian Masse:
How much of the federal money committed to the Phase 1 Memorandum of Understanding signed on September 25, 2002, between the Ontario provincial government and the government has actually been transferred to the City of Windsor, the Province of Ontario or private contractor(s), or spent for projects agreed to in that document?
Hon. John Godfrey (Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Infrastructure has not yet transferred any money committed to the phase 1 memorandum of understanding signed on September 25, 2002, to the city of Windsor, the Province of Ontario or private contractor(s), or spent for projects agreed to in that document because the contribution agreement for phase 1 projects has not yet been signed.
Question No. 173--Mr. Randy White:
With regard to Correctional Services Canada, (a) has the department identified any problems or inconsistencies with laboratory testing procedures and laboratory test results conducted by Maxxam Analytics Inc., and specifically its Human Toxicology Department and Genetic Identification Division; (b) between June 20, 2003, and June 20, 2005, how many federally-sentenced offenders, who have been paroled or released on statutory release, have changed their names; and (c) between June 20, 2003, and June 20, 2005, how many Correctional Services Canada inmates have had gender re-assignment surgery, also known as a sex change, or its reversal?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows:
|
(a) MAXXAM Analytics Inc. of Mississauga, Ontario has provided forensic drug testing in its human toxicology department for Correctional Services Canada, CSC, for several years. The laboratory is assessed by two forensic toxicologists on a contractual basis annually. |
|
Regular contact is maintained by CSC personnel and the two toxicologists with the laboratory to discuss any challenges that may arise. the laboratory is also evaluated by the substance abuse and mental health services administration, SAMHSA, forensic drug testing accreditation program. The SAMHSA program also has two on-site inspections annually and is considered the most rigorous laboratory drug testing certification worldwide since started in 1987-1988. |
|
MAXXAM Analytics has always responded appropriately to any concerns from CSC on any aspect of the forensic drug testing program. CSC does not have any concerns about the quality of service provided by MAXXAM Analytics to CSC's urinalysis program. |
|
The genetic identification division of MAXXAM Analytics does not provide analytical testing services for the urinalysis program. |
|
(b) If an offender changes his or her name legally then the offender management system, OMS, tombstone information will be mo
|