38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 025
CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
|
 |
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Order in Council Appointments |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Department of Social Development Act |
|
|
Hon. R. John Efford |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act |
|
|
Hon. R. John Efford |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Carrie's Guardian Angel Law |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Canadian Forces Housing Agency |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Competition Act |
|
|
(Bill C-19. On the Order: Government Orders:)
|
|
|
Hon. Jean Lapierre |
|
|
Hon. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Lynn Myers (Kitchener—Wilmot—Wellesley—Woolwich, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee)
|
|
|
Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act |
|
|
Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Motions in Amendment |
|
|
Hon. Jean Lapierre |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ) |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Family Physicians of Canada Week |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.) |
|
|
Hockey |
|
|
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) |
|
|
Poland |
|
|
Hon. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.) |
|
|
Department of National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ) |
|
|
Diabetes |
|
|
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.) |
|
|
Diabetes |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Child Care |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Integration of the Americas |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Juvenile Diabetes |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC) |
|
|
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.) |
|
|
Sudan |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Diabetes |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
International Solidarity |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) |
|
|
Middle East |
|
|
Mr. Russ Powers (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, Lib.) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Taxation |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Canada-U.S. Relations |
|
|
Mr. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Judy Sgro (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Judy Sgro (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Judy Sgro |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Judy Sgro (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Judy Sgro (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Budget Surplus |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Aerospace Industry |
|
|
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.) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Judy Sgro (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Judy Sgro (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Prime Minister |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Finance |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Technology Partnerships Canada |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Economic Development |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, 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.) |
|
|
Social Programs |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Middle East |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Royal Canadian Mounted Police |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Housing |
|
|
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
Research and Development |
|
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Ellen Fairclough |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Department of Public Safety and emergency Preparedness Act |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Lévesque (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Lévesque |
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Lévesque |
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Lévesque |
|
|
Hon. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Denis Paradis |
|
|
Mr. Roger Gaudet (Montcalm, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Denis Paradis |
|
|
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Denis Paradis |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne |
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne |
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec |
|
|
Mr. Réal Lapierre (Lévis—Bellechasse, BQ) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Lapierre |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Lapierre |
|
|
Mr. David Smith (Pontiac, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. David Smith |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. David Smith |
|
|
Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Division 11) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
(Division 12) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Adjournment Proceedings
|
|
|
Maher Arar Inquiry |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen |
|
|
Natural Resources |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Oil and Gas Industry |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice |
|
|
Hon. Sue Barnes |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Canadian Heritage--Main Estimates, 2004-05 |
|
|
(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Canadian Heritage in the main estimates, Mr. Strahl in the chair)
|
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
Ms. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.) |
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
Ms. Bev Oda |
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
Ms. Bev Oda |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Ms. Bev Oda |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Ms. Bev Oda |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Ms. Bev Oda |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Maka Kotto |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Maka Kotto |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
L'hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Ms. Bev Oda |
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
L'hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Owen (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Sport), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Owen |
|
|
Mr. Marc Lemay |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Owen |
|
|
Mr. Marc Lemay |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Owen |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Ms. Bev Oda |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Chan (Minister of State (Multiculturalism), Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Owen |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Ms. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Mr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
Hon. Sarmite Bulte |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
Hon. Sarmite Bulte |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla |
|
|
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(0955)
[Translation]
Order in Council Appointments
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of order in council appointments made by the government.
* * *
(1005)
[English]
Department of Social Development Act
Hon. R. John Efford (for the Minister of Social Development) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-22, an act to establish the Department of Social Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act
Hon. R. John Efford (for the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-23, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Carrie's Guardian Angel Law
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-286, an act to amend the Criminal Code (child sexual predators).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce this private member's bill entitled Carrie's guardian angel law. The intent of the bill is to get tough with pedophiles, many of whom serve days or months in jail for preying on children while the damage caused to the victims often lasts a lifetime. The bill refers to the victim as a person under the age of 16.
Carrie's guardian angel law carries a minimum sentence of life imprisonment in cases of sexual assault on a child that involves repeated assaults, multiple victims, repeat offences, more than one offender, an element of confinement or kidnapping or an offender who is in a position of trust with respect to the child.
Under the provisions of the bill an offender would be ineligible for a parole for 20 years.
It is time that those who harm our children are locked away for a long time.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
(1010)
Petitions
Canadian Forces Housing Agency
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise again as I have almost every day since Parliament convened this fall to present yet another petition, this one signed by citizens of Windsor, Ontario. The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of Parliament the fact that families living in military communities in on base housing have access to services that address their specific needs; however, many of those living conditions are substandard and yet they see their rent rising all the time. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to immediately suspend any future rent increases for accommodation provided by the Canadian Forces Housing Agency until such time as the Government of Canada makes substantive improvements to the living conditions of housing provided for military families.
I am pleased that in a conversation yesterday the Minister of National Defence indicated that he is in agreement with these petitioners and that he is lobbying the President of the Treasury Board to make the necessary changes.
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Competition Act
(Bill C-19. On the Order: Government Orders:)
|
November 2, 2004--The Minister of Industry--Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. |
Hon. Jean Lapierre (for the Minister of Industry) moved:
|
That Bill C-19, an act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology. |
Hon. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I open the debate on Bill C-19, an act to amend the Competition Act. I am looking forward to working with all members of the House in considering this vital piece of economic legislation.
As mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, the government wants to ensure that the up to date legislative framework for business is put in place, and some of the amendments in the Competition Act are deemed to move in that direction.
Bill C-19 would strengthen Canada's competition framework in a global economic partnership to benefit consumers, as well as businesses, both large and small. These amendments would also create a greater symmetry between our competition regime and those of our major trading partners we deal with on a daily basis. That is good for business, which is increasingly multinational, and it is also good for our economy.
Bill C-19 implements a number of key recommendations from the industry committee's comprehensive report, “A Plan to Modernize Canada's Competition Regime”. The legislation before us today will strengthen the act by: providing restitution for consumer loss resulting from false or misleading advertising; introducing a general administrative monetary penalty provision for abuse of dominance in any industry; removing the airline specific provisions from the act to return it to a law of general application; increasing the level of administrative monetary penalties for deceptive or misleading marketing practices; and decriminalizing the pricing provisions.
In recent years we have taken an incremental approach to changing this complex legislation. We have always been careful and measured and move forward with amendments to this bill with no exception. Bill C-19 balances the interests of businesses and consumers in a number of ways.
On the business side, for example, it moves us toward a law of general application by removing the airline specific provisions, as advocated by the industry committee's recommendations that have come forward. It also decriminalizes the pricing provisions in response to the committee's recommendations and long-standing requests from various business groups.
On the consumer side, for example, it ensures that Canadians will have access to remedies similar to those in other states we do business with. When they have lost money as a result of misleading representations, they have a chance to reclaim those losses.
Consumers need to have faith in the marketplace and it is to our advantage to make sure that faith is there. They expect to be reimbursed for losses resulting from false claims, and they should be. The proposal for restitution would add an important additional remedy for the courts in cases where consumers have lost money as a result of false or misleading representations.
The Competition Bureau regularly receives complaints from consumers who have lost money buying products that simply do not work. Based on advertisers' false or misleading representations, they lose their investment. Those who engage in such practices can gain an unfair advantage in the market as well. That is bad for our marketplace. It is bad for our consumers. A restitution remedy is an appropriate tool to address this situation.
We are proposing a general administrative monetary penalty regime, or AMPs, for abuse of dominance. This provision would be applicable to all industries and would ensure a level playing field among all participants, including the airline industry.
AMPs are used in a specific way to encourage compliance with the law in a number of jurisdictions. In fact, our act is one of the few in the world that does not allow a financial remedy in such cases. The introduction of AMPs for cases of abuse of dominance will make our competition regime more similar to its counterparts in other jurisdictions, including our major trading partners. The maximum penalty would be $10 million, and $15 million for each subsequent order under the new provisions.
(1015)
In other words, we are proposing a balanced approach to improve the remedies available in this particular section of the act.
We are also proposing to remove the airline specific regime consisting of provisions found in the Competition Act and the airline regulations. The airline specific provisions were introduced in 2000 and 2002 following the merger of Canadian and Air Canada and provided the Competition Bureau with the tools regarding concerns over predatory conduct by a dominant airline.
The Canadian airline industry has changed significantly since that merger. We have seen a decline in Air Canada's dominant market share; the entry and growth of low cost carriers; the development of competing loyalty programs; the growth of the Internet as a means of distributing tickets; and the changing role of travel agents.
The current provisions are no longer required and should be replaced with the general regime which I just described. This change would have the benefit of returning the act to a law of general application, something recommended by the industry committee in 2002 and by numerous competition law experts.
Bill C-19 also proposes to increase the existing level of administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs, available under the deceptive marketing practices provisions. The current limitation for AMPs generally represents only a small fraction of the profits made by businesses through deceptive marketing practices.
The level of AMPs needs to be increased in order to encourage compliance with the Competition Act and stop deceptive marketing practices. It is appropriate to bring the limits of AMPs for cases of deceptive practices to a level that is consistent with that proposed for dominance. Accordingly, the maximum penalty proposed under these deceptive marketing provisions would be, for individuals, $750,000 and $1 million per subsequent order, and for corporations, $10 million and $15 million for subsequent orders.
Bill C-19 would also reform the pricing provisions dealing with price discrimination, geographic price discrimination, predatory pricing and promotional allowances. Bill C-19 would repeal these criminal provisions and bring them under the civil regime under the abuse of dominance provisions. This type of pricing behaviour would be best suited to a civil provision with a competition test if AMPs are available to deal with anti-competitive behaviour.
Canadians are being well served by our competition regime, which is among the most developed in the world. However, there is always room for improvement. Bill C-19 represents the latest step in an incremental legislative evolution that shows the government is committed to having a modern, effective Competition Act.
This legislative package is responsive to the recommendations of Parliament and industry, consumers and businesses. Taken together, these amendments would strengthen the Competition Act. They would effectively deter anti-competitive behaviour that is most harmful to the Canadian economy and Canadian consumers. They would promote legitimate pro-competitive business practices to ensure a competitive marketplace, one where consumers and businesses benefit from competitive practices, product choice and quality service.
Again let me say that I look forward to working with all members of the House on this. I hope everyone will look at this piece of legislation as vital to the economy of Canada and to our legislative agenda.
(1020)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-19. The government has decided to proceed by committee report in order to consider the bill more thoroughly. I think this will be a good opportunity to verify whether parliamentary reform has actually produced results. I think that referring the bill directly to committee will permit it to study the bill more broadly and make it much more general than it was.
We just have to look at the report of the committee on industry from a few years ago. The committee had gone through the Competition Act and made a lot of recommendations in order to make it complete and reflect the new reality of competition on the global market and what we are dealing with.
Unfortunately in the bill tabled by the government, 16 recommendations in this parliamentary committee's report, prepared a few years ago, were not implemented. I hope when we are at committee stage that we will meet witnesses and be able to expand the proposed amendments to the bill. There are things that need to be added.
Of course, there are the recommendations on the table, which are in the bill, and we approve them. We will vote for referring this bill to the committee. However, it seems important that we be able to broaden the debate.
I will give just one example. In the committee report, recommendation No. 3 said that the government should empower the court with the right to impose administrative penalties on anyone found in breach of section 75, on the refusal to deal, section 76, on consignment selling, section 77, on exclusive dealing and market restriction, section 79, on abuse of dominant position and section 81, on delivered pricing.
Of these recommendations, the government only agreed with the one relating to abuse of dominant position. The approach in the committee report was really much more comprehensive and general, and we do not find it in the current bill.
During the study in committee, I hope that we will be able to add to the bill. This is not simply consideration at second reading, where we agree on the principle of the bill before referring it to the committee to try to improve it in detail. Instead, we want it to be referred to the committee to broaden the study of it. I think that many people would be interested in testifying in order to bring about much more thorough changes.
In this sense, I wanted to give an example that affects us all, namely, what we have experienced in recent years concerning the price of gas. I remember that the Standing Committee on Industry held hearings where representatives of the oil industry were called in to justify price increases. Finally, it came to the conclusion that it could not really prove that there was collusion. However, it agreed that the commissioner of competition should have enhanced powers. This is not in the bill.
The then commissioner of competition, Mr. von Finckenstein, said:
|
While the Bureau's mandate includes the very important role of being an investigator and advocate for competition, the current legislation does not provide the Bureau with the authority to conduct an industry study. |
The commissioner himself recognized that the legislation did not provide adequate authority to get to the bottom of the matter. He also said that if the legislation was not amended, a neutral body should be created at least to make a thorough examination and permit investigation in the industrial sector, without collusion having to be proven first.
I would have liked to have this type of argument in the bill before us. In the end, this bill seems to go along what big business wants, because it had feared the set of recommendations would require it to treat the consumer with much greater respect. That is not to be found in the bill as it stands right now.
If, in committee, we can manage to give the bill more clout, and have it deal with more issues, I think we will have done a good job.
As to the oil companies, it seems that every time they have been the subject of complaints under the Competition Act, no charge has been laid. Maybe this is because there was no case for an charge, but it is also obvious that the competition commissioner does not have all the tools he needs to do his investigative job properly.
(1025)
When we are presented with arguments such as the increased cost of gasoline, the instability in Iraq, the hard winters, taxes, a new one crops up every time to justify the price hike. So we have trouble analyzing the situation in depth.
With the hearings all held, and all the testimony heard, we thought the government might have been encouraged to correct the law to allow an in-depth investigation. This has not been possible so far. The commissioner himself acknowledges that the Competition Act lacks backbone. We are in the process of examining amendments to that act which the government has proposed.
A Liberal committee even addressed the matter in 1998 and admitted the lack of competition in the oil and gas industry. It stated:
|
However, the committee also believes that the wave of mergers in the past ten years has made the industry overly concentrated, and the normal interplay of supply and demand cannot explain the wide price fluctuations. |
A number of recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology were not heeded by the government. They were intended to provide us with an amended act that would bring about certain improvements. A number of other recommendations are still waiting in the wings for the action they deserve.
For example, there was a recommendation for “questions of law to be considered by all the members sitting in a proceeding.” That was one of the recommendations. There was also a group, numbers 12 through 15 which stated:
|
That the Government of Canada amend the Competition Act to create a two-track approach for agreements between competitors. The first track would retain the conspiracy provision...for agreements that are strictly devised to restrict competition.... The second track would deal with any other type of agreement between competitors in which restrictions on competition are ancillary to the agreement’s main or broader purpose. |
Hon. members can see that this is a major hang-up, a place should be changed. It would have given the Competition Bureau more leeway to properly deal with everything relating to conspiracies that might not be so much a criminal matter, yet create complications for proper application of the principle of competition.
So, we have this type of recommendations. The government did not follow through on several other ones. The government may say that the bill before us today improves somewhat the current act, however it could have done a lot more. It is hard to understand how the government can say that it took the time to analyze the work of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology advocating an indepth rework of the bill. Today we only have some of the amendments we would have expected to put more teeth into the Competition Act and give the Competition Bureau the tools it needs to investigate and give consumers what they want.
While markets across the world are evolving, it would be very important to provide the Canadian Competition Act with relevant tools. For instance, last year in California the oil sector was taken to court for alleged price fixing.The current act does not give the Commissioner of Competition the means to be present in court and follow the case closely to see whether it might have any implication in Canada.
There is a whole series of examples showing that the government bill will indeed improve the act, but not to the extent it should. The Bloc Québécois will support sending the bill to committee. In committee, Bloc members will push not only for the bill to be improved in its clauses but also to broaden the scope of the reform. We need a bill that truly reflects the reality of the market place in this 21th century.
(1030)
[English]
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge my colleague from Windsor West who is a bit under the weather today and wanted the opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation that he has been working on for some time now. I want to acknowledge the work that he has done.
Discussions on the Competition Act have been going on for some time now. When I was on the industry committee, we spent a fair amount of time on the Competition Act and issues relating to competition, lobbying the industry, and a whole number of areas. It is interesting to note that the one particular matter within Bill C-19 that is being put back to the way it was is the issue relating to airlines.
I was the transportation critic at the time when the Minister of Transport requested the removal of the airline industry from the Competition Act. It was a terrible period of time. I was not happy with the route that he took. I was not happy with the fact that airlines were being removed from the Competition Act. I was not happy with the fact that the competition commissioner would be the person setting out the deal that would merge Canadian Airlines and Air Canada. As a result, there were ongoing disputes within the industry among workers and others. I was not happy with that process.
Bill C-19 is the product of several years of consultation. The industry committee released a report in 2002 on modernizing our competition regime. The ministry reviewed the report's recommendations and limited public dialogue was initiated through a public policy forum. The Competition Act is intended as a framework law that would apply to all businesses in Canada. It has civil and criminal law provisions. Its objective is to protect the process of competition and not individual competitors.
The Competition Bureau enforces and administers the act through the commissioner and is an independent law enforcement organization. The purpose of the bureau is to attempt to ensure that Canada has a competitive marketplace and that all Canadians enjoy the benefits of competitive pricing, product choice and quality service.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry has indicated that Bill C-19 is essentially a bill that would not accomplish all that it could. Many other changes were recommended in the 2002 parliamentary committee report that are not dealt with in the bill. The fact that the bill falls short of its potential is no reason to oppose it, but we are disappointed that over two years have passed and this is the best that the government has come up with.
As is apparent now, my colleagues in the NDP will be supporting the bill because it does provide several minor changes to the Competition Act that we believe are necessary. It does provide to some extent the Competition Bureau and the commissioner with more teeth to protect Canadians' interests.
The bill, as proposed, does a few small but important new things. It would provide the competition commissioner with the ability to seek restitution for consumer loss in case of false or misleading representation, for example, false advertising offers, those types of issues.
The bill introduces general administration monetary penalties for abuse of dominance in the industry. It would remove the airline specific provisions that were part of the act as a result of the Canadian Airlines and Air Canada merger thus returning the act to a law of general application. The legislation would increase the level of administrative monetary policies for deceptive marketing practices and decriminalize provisions in the act relating to pricing.
I want to mention the workings of the Competition Bureau and the struggle it is under in trying to do its job. The Competition Bureau is one of the smaller sectors in Industry Canada but has a very large mandate. At recent count, it employs just under 400 employees with an operating budget of $43.7 million in this fiscal year. Employees of the bureau and the commissioner are to be commended for their excellent work in dealing with record numbers of complaints this year. Consumer groups are confident and appreciative of the work that the new commissioner has been doing and we share their opinion. However, we have concerns as to whether the bureau will receive sufficient resources to do the job it is required to do with the new mandate assigned to it by the proposed legislation.
Officials at the bureau were upfront in their briefings. They have received budgetary relief to the end of 2006 to perform their duties, but additional responsibilities such as the administration of the new penalties as a result of decriminalization will cost money. If the government takes the issue of protecting consumers through a competition watchdog like the bureau seriously, it must make serious commitments to the bureau and provide adequate, sustained, long term funding.
(1035)
I would like to mention a little bit in regard to consumer protection versus competition protection. Much of the language around the proposed bill is how these changes would benefit consumers. Most consumer groups agree that these are good changes. During the briefing on the bill officials from the competition bureau identified the problem of funding for consumer groups and the fact that it was difficult to do a good job protecting consumers' interests.
The Office of Consumer Affairs at Industry Canada is minute compared to even the relatively small competition bureau. The Office of Consumer Affairs employs only 23 people at this time with a budget of $2.6 million annually, where $1.7 million is for contributions to consumer interest organizations.
The federal government used to take protecting consumers' interests much more seriously. Prior to 1993 there was a department of consumer affairs. The department was folded up in government restructuring in the nineties. The department was reduced to a branch of Industry Canada in 1993 and, before the reduction in status, the federal government allocated $68 million and 968 person years to the bureau.
The government has plenty of opportunities to protect Canadian consumers from things like credit card gouging, giving full protection to the food we eat, endless telemarketing calls, protecting pensions and investors, and price hikes on cable and telephone bills. The competition bureau does not always have the mandate to follow up on this and even if it does, consumers should have access to one stop shopping, dealing with the issue of protecting their interests.
We look forward to the opportunity to discuss the bill further in committee. Where changes can be made to strengthen the bill we certainly intend to do so.
(1040)
Mr. Lynn Myers (Kitchener—Wilmot—Wellesley—Woolwich, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak today about some of the amendments to the Competition Act proposed in Bill C-19 currently before this Parliament.
In particular, I would like to discuss two aspects of the bill. The first is the amendment providing for an administrative monetary penalty for companies that have been found to be abusing their dominant market position. The second removes criminal provisions regarding predatory pricing, price discrimination, geographic price discrimination and promotional allowances.
Before addressing the specifics, I would like to review some of the larger objectives behind these changes. The goal of the Competition Act is to establish business conduct rules that are fair and transparent. Such a system does not just discourage unfair competition, it also supports and encourages those who want to compete honestly. The honest players can see what is required of them and recognize that the rules apply to everyone. In such an environment there is an undeniable and positive incentive to play fairly.
That, in turn, gives us balance. Today there is a growing consensus that a fair market benefits everyone. Businesses recognize that they are consumers too and we consumers know that businesses are essential to creating the wealth we spend. Consumers also know that competition gives us better services and products for our money.
Canada is fortunate to have an effective and strong Competition Act. It got that way because it has been improved cautiously and incrementally over the years. The two amendments I recommend today are good examples of this kind of approach. I am equally certain that we can make other improvements, and we will do so in the future, but we will only do that once they have been subjected to the same careful review and broad consultations, as were the amendments we have before us today.
The first and most important of the two amendments I will discuss provides for an administrative monetary penalty, or AMP, when companies have abused their dominant market position. The general thrust here is simple. The government is amending the act to give more force to civil provisions in this area.
Abuse of dominant position is a dangerous occurrence because a company behaving in this manner can seriously injure its much smaller competitors in relatively short order. In these cases it is not always enough to be able to say the abuse has taken place. The competition tribunal should also have the option of backing that up with a sanction that is proportionate to the seriousness of the abuse.
The AMP makes civil actions against such players more effective. As a consequence, it encourages them to refrain from acting unfairly in the first place.
At the same time, a civil action is much more flexible than a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof attached to a civil action is lower than that required for criminal actions. They are also less disruptive than criminal actions. Attaching a sanction to this option encourages companies to ensure they are complying with the act rather than depending on government action to force them into line.
AMPs are a proven approach as well. A number of other advanced industrial nations have used AMPs to very good effect. These proposed amendments would bring Canada's Competition Act into line with the approaches used by our major trading partners.
It is no secret that big businesses do not unreservedly welcome sanctions. Companies understand that, at minimum, sanctions necessarily have some impact on honest dealers as well as dishonest ones. However firms also raise a legitimate concern that overly intrusive rules can have a chilling effect on otherwise legitimate competitive behaviour. The government shares these concerns and has taken them into consideration.
As is the case with all proposed amendments to the Competition Act, the AMP is being instituted in a way that will minimize its impact on the market as a whole. The AMPs are targeting abuse of dominance cases where the negative impact of the behaviour on the economy is potentially the most significant. I would also remind the House that the competition bureau will continue to publicize guidelines on the act's provisions so that companies know what they have to do to comply.
I will now discuss a second issue covered by the proposed amendments, that being the decriminalization of provisions regarding various pricing practices. As I do so, I would like to point out that the two amendments are not unrelated. The government is proposing to eliminate certain criminal provisions in part because the AMP I have just been discussing can be used to deal with the same practices in a less onerous but more effective way. These amendments would repeal the criminal provisions regarding price discrimination, geographic price discrimination, predatory pricing and promotional allowances. This type of behaviour would continue to be dealt with under the civil abuse of dominance provisions with AMPs.
(1045)
The simple truth is that there have been few cases in which these provisions have been used. The standard of proof for criminal prosecution is high and, of course, it should be. In addition, for the purposes of protecting small businesses from unscrupulous competitors, criminal proceedings have serious limitations. The criminal provisions are a difficult to use instrument and, at the same time, a blunt one.
The proposed AMP gives competitors an incentive to act in accordance with the act and gives the commissioner a more flexible means to pursue dominant competitors that are engaged in pricing behaviours that cause injury to competition.
For all those reasons, and by way of conclusion, I want to advise the House that Bill C-19 is a good bill and should proceed with the concurrence of all members. I would hope that there would be general support in the House for this very important initiative.
[Translation]
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to speak to Bill C-19, an Act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. But first, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, who summarized earlier the position of the Bloc by highlighting the flaws and omissions of the bill as well as the improvements that could be made. It is important to understand what is going on.
Before moving on to the subject at hand, that is, the bill before the House, I would like to talk about the principle of competition itself. Competition is not a bad thing. Competition is about a free market based on the free movement of goods and services. Our whole economic system relies on the classic economic theory of supply and demand. Therefore, for our system to work well, businesses must be free to produce the goods they want to produce. And they must also be free to sell their goods under various conditions, and consumers must be free to accept the goods. Of course, that leads to competition among businesses fighting for customers.
The problem in our market economy is not competition but rather the cases of abuse of competition as clearly defined in the bill. It deals with cases of abuse of dominant position and deceptive marketing cases. To smother or get rid of a competitor, businesses have no qualms about relying on deceptive marketing practices. We see it every day. Advertising is all about unfair competition.
There is also price discrimination. It is common practice that competition can still be distorted through pricing. There is also dishonest promotion. We are submerged by it every day. Moreover, geographic discrimination is such that competition hampers the free circulation of goods and services. The consequences of a unfair competition can surely be dramatic for a business and for clients, but also for a region. Every time I have an opportunity to talk about it, I obviously talk about my region, the asbestos region. Our resource, chrysotile asbestos, has been suffering for several years from unfair competition on the part of businesses which have replacement products. All means are used. There are international conspiracies to annihilate an economy and a region through unfair costs, which have become commonplace. In a system where competition is distorted, not only companies, but regions can be destroyed.
A careful look at the wording of Bill C-19, reveals, as my colleague was mentioning, that improvements have been made and that some very positive things are to be found in the bill. Besides, sanctions are in place to compensate people who have been misled. I think usual and a good thing in the proposed legislation. There are even sanctions including an injunction to block the distribution of some goods.
Let us look more closely at the summary of the bill. It amends the Competition Act, first providing authority for the commissioner of competition to seek restitution—as I said earlier—for consumer loss resulting from false or misleading representations.
That is obviously the minimum a bill would need to be effective. If there are no sanctions, why bother having a bill? Here, too, it would increase the level of administrative monetary penalties. I think that will discourage quite a few. These administrative monetary penalties will be imposed for deceptive marketing practices. Thus, there is considerable work to be done on this.
A general provision would have to be put in place to introduce administrative sanctions for abuse of dominant position in any industry. This is something we see every day, very regularly. There are cases of dominance in the industry, which interfere with the market economy and competition and which, as I mentioned, have disastrous consequences not only for clients, consumers and businesses, but also for regions.
(1050)
There is also a clause that removes the airline-specific provisions from the act to return it to a law of general application.The bill also makes other amendments.
As I said, this is the minimum that should be found in a bill that aims to fight unfair competition, dishonest practices and false advertising. Unfortunately, Bill C-19 does not go far enough, as my colleague has said. It is incomplete.
A standing committee was responsible for making recommendations to improve it, to make it a complete bill. As my colleague mentioned, many additions were not included in the bill, and they are still not there today. Thus, the standing committee did not receive a positive response to its 29 recommendations.
There are at least three recommendations I want to stress. The Bloc Québécois has identified them, and in our opinion, they not only should be part of this bill, they could improve it and would be remarkably effective.
For example, we can look at recommendation No. 9, which would permit a party to a contested proceeding to refer to the Competition Tribunal a question of law, jurisdiction, practice or procedure in relation to the application or interpretation of these parts.
This is important. A party, be it a merchant or someone else, who feels that it has been wronged and that justice has not been done will eventually be able to go to the tribunal. We know that today, in the current context, unless the bill is amended, only the commissioner can bring such matters before the tribunal, or else both parties can do so, provided they are in agreement.
I think this should be included in the bill, so that no party is wronged and that it is possible and easy for either party to be heard.
There are other recommendations. My colleague referred to them earlier. I would like to focus on the one dealing with creating a two-track approach to offences, here again promoting greater efficiency. The legislation, on the one hand, deals with conspiracy and, on the other hand, with any other type of agreement with respect, for instance, to restrictions to competition. This absolutely must be well defined. Also, subject matters, purposes and proceedings all have to be clearly identified, if any positive results are to be achieved.
On the subject of conspiracy, I gave an example earlier. Conspiracies are not always obvious. They can be very difficult to prove because, very often, things are done indirectly that could not be done directly. Disinformation is used—with abandon. There are not necessarily any identifiable practices in place, making conspiracy very difficult to prove.
The consequences are obvious, however. Businesses suffer, as do their clients, consumers and the regions also, as I indicated earlier. In my opinion, and it is also the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, proper identification of conspiracies is necessary.
Another recommendation is to permit questions of law to be considered by all the members sitting in a proceeding, whereas only a judge can do so at present.
If I may make a final comment, nothing in this bill indicates that these offences will remain illegal after this legislation is passed.
Under the circumstances, as my hon. colleague said, the Bloc Québécois figures that important additions ought to be made to the bill. Therefore, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of referring the bill to committee but is reserving judgment on the substance of the bill.
(1055)
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to examine today the changes proposed to the Competition Act that are now before Parliament.
These changes reinforce the Competition Act. For almost 20 years, this act has been an excellent tool supporting an equitable, efficient and competitive market in Canada. The changes proposed in Bill C-19 take into account today's circumstances as well as comments made by consumers, businesses and parliamentarians, including the House Standing Committee on Industry. Quite simply, these changes will make this law better.
A certain amount of aspects of this legislation deserve our attention. Today, however, I will address only one of them: the proposal to repeal the provisions of the act which concern specifically the airlines. I am convinced that these changes are appropriate at this point in time and that they will improve this important instrument of economic legislation.
The changes apply to four sections of the act, which that apply specifically to the Canadian of domestic airline industry.
First, the changes eliminate the definitions of anticompetitive acts pertaining to air transport.
Secondly, the changes eliminate a series of provisions that allowed travel agents to collectively negotiate commissions with the dominant airline without the risk of being prosecuted under the provisions regarding conspiracies and price fixing.
Third, the amendments eliminate a provision allowing the Commissioner of Competition to issue cease and desist orders during an investigation on the possible abuse of dominant position in the airline industry.
Fourth, the amendments eliminate the administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs, that may be imposed on an air carrier that uses its dominant position abusively, since the proposed changes include AMPs that apply generally to all industries.
In order to understand why the government is introducing these amendments now, we must remember the conditions that initially led to the enactment of the provisions aimed specifically at the air sector.
These provisions were adopted in the wake of a series of major and unusual changes in the air transport's domestic market. First, the merging of Air Canada and Canadian International resulted in the creation of a very dominant company that generated 90% of all domestic revenues, while handling over 80% of domestic air traffic.
Later, the market was deeply affected by the September 11 terrorist attacks. All over the world, the air transport industry suffered major financial losses, because many people were afraid to fly.
That slowdown accelerated the upheaval that had already begun in the Canadian air transport industry. Canada 3000 declared bankruptcy, leaving WestJet as Air Canada's sole domestic competitor. Many experts were of the opinion that the business environment at the time was too great an obstacle to allow the establishment of new domestic discount airlines. It was felt that this was the case not only in Canada, but also in other major markets.
Now, the situation is a very different one. First, competition in domestic air transport has significantly improved. The power of dominant carriers to use their market position was offset by the efficiency and low overhead costs of discount airlines. Moreover, Air Canada's share of the market is no longer as dominant as it was at one time. In fact, in western Canada, Air Canada accounts for less than half of all domestic flights. The eastern triangle of Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal is now one of the most competitive markets in Canada.
In light of this change of circumstances, the government believes that it is no longer necessary that the Competition Act specifically target the air transport industry. The act can now revert back to being a piece of legislation that applies generally to all types of industries, as recommended by the Standing Committee on Industry. However, as was pointed out by some parliamentarians, eliminating these provisions is not enough. We must also provide incentives that will have a real deterrent effect on anti-competitive practices.
(1100)
AMPs in respect of cases of abuse of dominant position were and remain a good idea. So much so, that it seems logical to apply them not only to the airline industry but to all industries. This is precisely what the new legislation would do.
The role of AMPs is to prevent a company from convincing the public or its shareholders that it is competing fairly when, in fact, it is not. This logic applies to dominant companies in all industries. This is why, under this bill, AMPs would apply across the board.
Along the same line, it is logical to repeal anti-competitive conduct definitions relating specifically to airline industry. Airline industry conduct will be treated like the conduct of any other industry.
Specific provisions applying to relations between a dominant carrier and travel agencies have become obsolete by force of circumstances. Travel agencies now earn their income from service fees they charge to their customers, rather than from commissions on the sale of tickets. Also, customers are increasingly using the Internet to buy their tickets directly from airliners.
Finally, provisions relating to the power of the Commissioner of Competitions to issue prohibition orders under Section 104.1 have been successfully challenged by Air Canada and have been rendered inoperative by a court decision. Therefore we have to repeal those provisions.
In summary, what do we have on the table? Under this bill, the legislation would become an act of general application providing for new incentives. It repeals two aspects of the act which are no longer necessary. It also repeals another provision which has been rendered ineffective by a court challenge.
If we keep in mind that the abrogation of the provisions relating specifically to the airline industry is accompanied by a general application of AMPs, the choice is very clear. We can update the provisions relating to the airline industry while strengthening the whole act it in a more general way. Besides, my colleagues will have the opportunity to talk about other legislative improvements introduced in the House which will allow for a balanced approach where stakeholders and parliamentarians interests are concerned.
Finally, I ask the House to pass this bill quickly.
(1105)
[English]
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-19, an act to amend the Competition Act and other related acts.
The Competition Act is a very important one. It is what we consider to be framework legislation. The purpose of framework legislation, such as the Competition Act or the Copyright Act, is to clearly outline how the government is will facilitate healthy relationships between businesses, consumers and government and thus allow the economy to allocate resources more efficiently. Any amendments to framework legislation merit a discussion of policy, and that is where I would like to begin.
In the purest economic sense, the purpose of the Competition Act is to strike down forces that restrain competition and inhibit the market from generating wealth. The act also serves as a regulator to correct areas where there is too much of a monopoly.
With respect to competition policy, the Conservative Party of Canada is guided by a belief that the best guarantors are the prosperity and well-being of the people of Canada through: first, the freedom of individual Canadians to pursue their enlightened and legitimate self-interest within a competitive economy; second, the freedom of individual Canadians to enjoy the fruits of their labour to the greatest possible extent and the right to own property; and, third, a belief that a responsible government must be fiscally prudent and should be limited to those responsibilities which cannot be discharged reasonably by the individual or by others.
The Conservative Party and its founding parties have consistently put forth the view that Canadian consumers and producers are best served not by a tribunal or by government intervention in the marketplace but by genuine business to business competition. The focus of competition policy therefore should be not to protect individuals or individual companies but to facilitate competition itself.
The standing committee on industry in 2002 spent many enjoyable hours discussing competition policy during the last Parliament. I am quite sure that the committee's future studies and report on the bill will be excellent as well.
On April 23, 2002, the committee tabled in the House a report entitled, “A Plan to Modernize Canada's Competition Regime”. The report was the culmination of a great deal of study by the committee, which included extensive hearings over a number of months. Also, during the 37th Parliament, the committee studied a private member's bill that would have amended the Competition Act to clarify the competition tribunal's powers to make or not an order in the case of a merger when gains and efficiency were expected or when the merger would create or strengthen a dominant market position.
We should recognize the hard work of various members of the House in terms of competition policy, even though we have not always agreed. For instance, I often disagree with the member for Pickering—Scarborough East on where he would go with competition policy, but I think his efforts need to be recognized. While his bill was passed by the House of Commons, it was not passed by the Senate.
I would appreciate knowing, when we study the bill, what if any plans the government has for addressing the issues raised in the bill of the member opposite and whether it will bring forward the bill that was passed in the last Parliament.
In spite of all the work that the House has completed in studying the Competition Act, it is a very complicated policy area. The government has recognized this fact, and I compliment it on its commitment to public consultations in the preparation of the bill.
With respect to the details of Bill C-19, the Conservative Party of Canada will be in favour of sending it to committee before second reading. It is an extremely technical piece of legislation that deserves the full attention of the standing committee and of legal experts in the field. However, at this time I want to clearly state that we do have a number of problems and questions related to the legislation, and I will outline them. It is my hope that we would be able to address these issues effectively in committee.
I would like to start by summarizing the legislation before us today.
Bill C-19 would provide restitution for consumers affected by false or misleading representations. The amendment would empower the Federal Court to order advertisers who contravene the false or misleading representation provisions of the act to provide restitution to consumers in an amount that would not exceed the amount paid for the products on which they were misrepresented.
The bill would create a new general administrative monetary penalty provision, a fine for what is called abusive dominance. The maximum penalty under such cases would be $10 million with $15 million for each subsequent order. The penalties would be paid to the consolidated revenue fund.
Furthermore, Bill C-19 would remove the airline specific provisions in the act, something that the previous member spoke on at length, with the introduction of a general fine to deal with cases of abusive dominance. Airline specific provisions are no longer necessary.
The bill would also increase the total amount of the fines applied to deceptive marketing practices to a maximum of $750,000 for individuals and $1 million for each subsequent order and $10 million for corporations and $15 million for each subsequent order.
(1110)
Bill C-19 would also decriminalizes the pricing provisions. This type of behaviour would continue to be dealt with under the civil abuse of dominance provisions with the addition of fines.
I would like to offer a critique at this point of the legislation. The legislation does act upon some of the recommendations of the 2002 report by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, which was supported by both the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Parties at the time, although we did offer some helpful dissenting reports. The report recommended that the government repeal all special provisions in the act regarding the airline industry so that the act applied generally to all industries and not specifically to the airline industry. We support that provision.
Interestingly, the government has changed its position on this issue. The initial government response to the standing committee's recommendations stated, “The government believes that the Competition Act currently needs specific airline provisions.” Now the government has changed its position. I guess we should commend it for recognizing that the committee was right in its recommendation.
My understanding is that the airline provisions were also a part of the Canada Transportation Act. I would like to ensure that the amendments presented in Bill C-19 would eliminate the airline provisions as specific provisions from all government legislation.
In addition, the standing committee proposed allowing the Competition Tribunal to impose fines involving a number of sections in the act, including abuse of dominance. The government has acted in part on this recommendation.
The most contentious issue is the large fines for abuse of dominance position. This section requires further clarification because the bill does not clearly define all of the activities that might be construed as abuse. In addition, these fines could total more than any criminal fine in the act, raising the question of why these civil provisions would be more punitive than criminal provisions in the bill.
Finally, we need to ensure that these fines will not have a negative effect on investment in Canada generally. That goes back to what I was saying earlier. We have to ensure framework legislation, such as the Competition Act. Its purpose is to facilitate competition; it is not to protect individuals or individual companies.
In conclusion, we have seen repeated reports in the news of how the Competition Bureau is struggling to deliver its services more effectively. We are asking it to do more and more, but the resources we are giving it has stayed constant or in some cases has decreased.
The former commissioner of competition, Konrad von Finckenstein, stated publicly that the bureau needed more money if we were to give it more functions. On June 21, 2003 he stated that he needed “$11 million more in his budget to come up to the minimal acceptable level of funding”. He went on to say that the bureau's money shortage was hurting the country's international reputation.
We believe he was right. The Global Competition Review, a journal in the United Kingdom specializing in anti-trust policy, has recently accused the Canadian Competition Bureau of being less efficient than many industrialized nations, including the U.S., Germany, Australia and the European Union.
The OECD has also criticized the Competition Bureau. In 2001 the OECD issued a report that stated:
|
The desire to retain Canadian control in some sectors (rather than allow foreign investment) limits what competition policy can do to remedy problems, which leads to tolerating monopolies subject only to ad hoc measures to regulate them. |
The OECD also stated that the bureau was underfunded as well.
To reiterate, we are best served by genuine business to business competition. The Conservative Party will continue to ensure that the Competition Act and the tribunal be guided by that principle rather than by the desire of some Liberal members to turn the act and the tribunal into an instrument of undue government interference in the marketplace.
Direct government interference in the economy by the Liberal Party has resulted in reduced competition and a weakened competitive advantage. In 1998 Canada was ranked 6th in competitiveness by the World Economic Forum. In 2004 it stands 15th.
The Conservative Party is pleased the government has begun to review essential economic legislation such as the Competition Act. However, there are many recommendations from the committee, on which I served, which have not been acted upon.
Therefore, the Conservative Party calls upon the government to continue to review acts, such as the Competition Act, to ensure greater efficiency in the marketplace, but to be guided in the first place by a view that we need genuine business to business competition, and the act should do that.
(1115)
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-19. As a member of the industry committee, I look forward to studying this bill in greater detail, hopefully as soon as Thursday if all colleagues are agreeable.
I listened carefully to the previous speaker, a member for whom I have great respect. I am sure the points he has raised will get good attention at the committee. We appreciate his bringing those points forward.
In addressing Bill C-19, a bill which proposes some important amendments to the act, I would like to focus on two particular provisions, both of which deal with deceptive advertising.
The first amendment would increase the administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs, that can be imposed when the courts find that a company's false advertising has had a significant negative impact on the economy. The second amendment would allow for restitution when false or misleading claims harm consumers in a manner that can be objectively quantified.
These provisions are improvements to the existing aspects of the act. AMPs, administrative monetary penalties, for false and misleading advertising already exist. The government is simply proposing to increase the amounts. Similarly, the addition of restitution is to increase the options available to courts to help consumers who have suffered losses because of deceptive claims.
It is important to remember as we consider these proposed amendments that catching and punishing flagrant violators of the Competition Act is only a very small part of what effective competition legislation allows the government to do. By way of analogy, we might think of traffic legislation. The most important function of a highway traffic act is to make it clear and obvious to everyone what acceptable driving practices are to give us all an incentive to follow those rules. Catching violators is pointless if the law does not provide that incentive.
Canada's Competition Act is effective because the major thrust of the act is to encourage voluntary compliance. This is also true of the amendments before us today. The effectiveness of the act is backed up by the Competition Bureau's work to ensure that Canadian business people know what is required of them.
The proposed amendments are refinements, not innovations. The administrative monetary penalties are already an option available under the act for some kinds of deceptive advertising as determined by the courts. Increasing the amount of penalties does of course increase the deterrent effect. That said, there is always a deterrent effect. The very fact that a company has to respond to proceedings against it has a deterrent effect.
What I would like to stress to the House is that a larger AMP emphasizes the seriousness of the deceptive behaviour. It tells people in the industry, the company's shareholders and the general public that a business has done something seriously wrong.
The second matter I would like to discuss is closely related in that it also applies to cases of deceptive advertising. It is a very unfortunate thing that few remedies under the Competition Act exist to address losses incurred by consumers affected by false and misleading advertising. This is a situation that needs to be changed.
The proposed amendment would give the courts another remedy for cases in which advertising has misled consumers into buying a product that simply does not work or meet the standards the advertiser proposes. This restitution, however, also has the ability to send a powerful message. It is only in a limited number of cases that deceptive advertising can be demonstrated to have had a measurable impact and that a case can be made for restitution. But when that happens, the message sent will be unmistakable.
I would remind the House that it is not enough to say caveat emptor, or buyer beware, when responding to some kinds of deceptive advertising. It is one thing when a consumer does not realistically assess a product. It is quite another when a company makes false claims about a product in its advertising.
Advertising is not just a way for a company to pitch and promote a product. Advertising is often a primary source of information about a product. It is not objective information. Vendors are trying to make the best case for their products, but the majority of advertisers manage to do this without misrepresentation. If this were not the case, nobody would pay attention to advertising.
Honest advertisers will naturally defend their freedom to promote their products aggressively, and they should, but this freedom needs to be balanced. Honest advertisers will recognize that some kinds of deceptive advertising call the legitimacy of all advertising into question when not actively discouraged.
Some critics will suggest that there is an equally valid fear on the other side of the scale: that we have to be careful not to create a chill effect that would frighten companies away from perfectly acceptable advertising practices. Is that fear legitimate? It most certainly is. That is precisely why the government has proceeded so carefully here.
(1120)
Following the industry committee's review of the Competition Act, the government studied the issues extensively and consulted widely. The changes proposed here are not far-reaching or drastic. They are careful but effective steps in the direction the government has established it should be moving.
I will sum up as follows. Yes, it is true that the majority of advertisers intends no mischief, but it is also true that the Competition Bureau hears too many complaints from consumers who have lost money because the products they have purchased simply do not work as advertised. The message the government wants to send about some kinds of deceptive advertising is more than “do not do this”. The message the government truly wants to send is “do not even think about doing this”.
The amendments we have before us today are a sensible refinement of the legislation that exists to send just that message. I encourage my fellow members to support Bill C-19. As a member of the industry committee, I certainly look forward to dealing with the bill, with my colleagues, as soon as the House is ready.
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, amendments to the Competition Act. I want to preface my comments by saying that the issue we are dealing with has to do with housekeeping. There are some important changes to the act. There have been additions that I believe will benefit consumers. We will have questions at committee and the opportunity to discuss them, but overall the bill fails to address issues that were discussed in 2002 with quite a degree of public consultation.
It troubles me that we have seen a series of bills like this coming through the House already, but we want to see a greater progression of legislation and we will have to see if it carries on past that. I hope that at committee we will address some of the deeper issues.
In this bill, there is an addition of additional monetary penalties for abuses of dominance and the effects on consumers in the market. I think that is a good step. Having some type of penalty is very important, because some of the practices that are affecting consumers right now are very difficult for people to deal with, especially when they lead to the frustration that nothing will happen at the end of the day. We do not want to be in a situation where we are over-penalizing or reducing the ability of the market to be creative. There needs to be an opportunity for people to advertise and push their products in the market. At the same time, there has to be accountability.
One of the things I am concerned about, and about which I have heard of a lot of frustration from my constituents, is related to the preying on seniors. I think we should be in the forefront of that particular issue because we have an aging population and there are more opportunities for those with less scrupulous practices to prey upon seniors.
The bill would act as a framework that applies to all businesses in Canada. It now has civil and criminal law provisions, which are being discussed. The objective is to protect competition, not individual competitors. Once again, that is the way in which the bill should be moved forward. Everyone agrees on that, which is very important.
The big issue is the resources from the bureau. We know the government scaled back the bureau significantly. In the past, the government took the Competition Bureau much more seriously. Back in 1993 there was a department of consumer affairs. The department was folded into government restructuring in the 1990s and has been part of Industry Canada since then, with its budget and staffing reduced. It is very important that the staffing and the tools are available so that we can look at competition issues.
One particular example is the fact that unions, organizations and a number of interest groups brought up the issue of evergreening to the Competition Bureau. It did not have the appropriate tools to deal with the situation and had to pass it back to the government. It blocked a situation where we wanted to have an anti-competitive issue looked at because it was affecting the pricing of drugs. The Supreme Court of Canada has called the current rules draconian, while at the same time the Competition Bureau could not deal with it because it did not have the appropriate tools.
Many of the changes to the bill will be minimal, as I have noted. It is important to once again focus on the fact that we do want to have the resources available when people have complaints.
Another big issue that has been raised is the labelling of foods, an issue on which we believe the Competition Bureau should have more flexibility. Once again, consumers want to have choice. That is what it is about. They want to have the opportunity to see what is in the foods and the services they are purchasing with their money. That requires rules and regulations. If there is misguided advertising related to those products, it can affect human health and people do not get a chance to actually make the choices they want to with their money.
I will wind up quickly, because I do not believe the bill deserves much more debate at this time as it will be referred to committee and is generally just housekeeping at the moment.
We will be asking significant questions about the AMPs, the fines and such, and whether or not they will be tax deductible. A good example is that those who are fined for an environmental infraction in this country after going through a court process get back 50% of the fine as a tax write-off. It is a business related expense. I want to make sure that if there are to be fines against competitive practices, perpetrators will not be able to write off half of those fines as a business related expense. That is absolute nonsense. It is not just about the consumer being ripped off; it is about those industries and business that are competing fairly but are seeing their profits and their employees suffer because of that.
(1125)
There are other issues related to that in terms of how the deductions, taxing and all those things will be related to the bill. I am looking forward to asking those questions. Hopefully we will see a further review of this act so that we will have significant changes, as opposed to this housekeeping that is happening.
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-19 which amends the Competition Act.
We know that competition is central to our economy. Our economy can only flourish if the spirit of competition is followed and if all businesses in the economic system follow the rules of the game.
Indeed, Canadians, as well as citizens in other jurisdictions, hold very dearly to the principle of accountability, not only as it applies to government institutions but as it applies to the private sector as well. Canadians want to see accountability and transparency in their dealings with private businesses as well as with governments.
Competition law is not something that Canadians think about every day. I would be prepared to grant that. However, the idea of competition is an ingrained concept among all citizens. All citizens, whether they understand the details of competition law, know when they are being fairly treated in the marketplace. Competition policy and law is about ensuring fair treatment. Citizens may not know all the arcane details about competition law, but they know when they are being fairly treated and when they are not being fairly treated.
Bill C-19 is framework legislation that is part of a continuing process to ensure that the Competition Act and the bureau remain effective in a rapidly changing global economy. There have been many international comparisons of competition bureaus and competition regimes across international jurisdictions. I lament the fact that our own competition regime sometimes has come up a bit lacking. I believe this bill will help to rectify that problem.
Globalization, deregulation and the growth of the Internet have profoundly affected our competition regime. We must ensure that our legislation keeps pace with these changes. Much of what is in Bill C-19 began with the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and its 2002 report entitled “The Plan to Modernize Canada's Competition Regime”.
The committee suggested a wholesale reform of Canada's competition policy, including strengthening the act's civil provisions, repealing the criminal pricing provisions, and returning the act to a law of general application by repealing the airline specific provisions which had been inserted not long ago as a result of a particular situation that existed in the airline industry two or three years ago. The committee recommended that we repeal the airline specific provisions and add them to a general regime with sufficient deterrence to achieve compliance. Bill C-19 does that and more.
Let me begin with the proposal for restitution. Bill C-19 would provide a restitution remedy for consumers affected by false or misleading advertisements. As a consumer I welcome this change and think it is about time Canadians had access to remedies similar to those of their American counterparts.
All Canadians are consumers; all of us as members of Parliament are consumers. We often have encounters with retailers or businesses where we feel we have not been properly treated or we feel that the service we have been given has not really justified the price we are paying for a particular product. For example, we could go to a retail store and, as happened to me recently, come back and find that the wrong product had been put in the packaging. Then we have to make the return trip to the outlet where we are given the right product. However, there is no restitution. There is no sense that we have been compensated for the loss of our time.
I believe that Bill C-19, in a parallel fashion, by instituting remedies when consumers have been the victims of false advertising, really gives consumers the sense of satisfaction that businesses are responding to them and that the economy is functioning properly.
There can be all the competition law that we want, but if consumers do not feel that at the end of the day there is some kind of restitution, then they really lose faith in the system. I think this is one of the important aspects of this bill and we must recognize it.
(1130)
We are talking about the administrative monetary penalties, AMPs. In the case, for example, of misleading advertising but also in cases of abuse of dominance, it is important to realize that the competition tribunal would decide the matter, not the bureau which acts as prosecutor in such cases. Oftentimes there is confusion between the tribunal and the bureau. Having a general AMP regime in place as opposed to provisions specific to one industry will ensure a level playing field among all participants in all sectors. It would also provide a significant incentive to comply with the act.
Under this new provision, the maximum amount for an AMP would be $10 million for the first order and $15 million for each subsequent order. Bill C-19 takes a balanced approach. It includes a list of factors for the tribunal to take into account when making an order for the payment of AMPs.
Another proposed amendment is the repeal of the airline specific provisions. These provisions are no longer necessary. The airline market is much more competitive than it was two or three years ago when these airline specific provisions were included.
(1135)
[Translation]
I wish to say again that the Canadian aviation industry has changed a lot since Air Canada's merger with Canadian Airlines. For example, Air Canada's domestic market shares have drastically declined. We have also seen the creation and growth of discount carriers, like WestJet, the increasing role of the Internet as a ticket distribution vehicle and a change in the role of travel agencies. These airline specific provisions achieved their purpose.
The 2002 Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology's report recommended that these provisions be repealed and replaced by a general system that would provide a sufficient deterrent to ensure compliance. This is exactly what the bill is aiming to do with the introduction ofthe AMP, or administrative monetary penalty, system.
We already have an AMP system under the deceptive marketing practices of the Competition Act. However, the existing limits for AMPs are not considered appropriate anymore, because they are not proportional to the earnings that businesses can derive from deceptive marketing practices. Bill C-19 proposes an increase of the maximum penalties to $750,000 for individuals. For businesses, it would be between $10 million and $15 million for each subsequent order.
This modification would promote compliance with the act and serve as a deterrent for deceptive marketing practices.
[English]
The last amendment in Bill C-19 relates to the criminal pricing provisions of the Competition Act. These pricing provisions deal with price discrimination, geographic price discrimination, predatory pricing and promotional allowances.
They are all criminal practices at the moment and must be addressed in the context of very high criminal burden of proof which of course is a problem because in many cases it is very difficult to prove that these practices have occurred. What is proposed here is to have these matters addressed under the civil regime of abuse of dominance. In other words, pricing complaints would be reviewed under the abuse of dominant position where AMPs, administrative monetary penalties, would be available. The industry committee, in its 2002 report, had recommended the repeal of the criminal pricing provisions and Bill C-19 reflects the committee's concerns.
Bill C-19 is a well thought initiative which is aimed at encouraging compliance with the Competition Act and deterring anti-competitive behaviour. It contains a balanced package of legislative amendments that address both the interests of consumers, and small and large businesses. For this reason, I would advise all members to join me in supporting this important legislation.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology.
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee)
* * *
Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
* * *
Speaker's Ruling
The Deputy Speaker: There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-6. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.
[Translation]
I shall now put Motion No. 1 to the House.
* * *
[English]
Motions in Amendment
Hon. Jean Lapierre (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) moved:
|
That Bill C-6, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 20 on page 2 with the following: |
|
“performing his or her duties and functions, the Minister may” |
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain acts.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of this proposed legislation which will enshrine in law the departmental structure announced last December and further solidify the working relationships that were put in place at that time. This is an important debate and one that will be watched closely by Canadians. It will show the degree to which hon. members on all sides of the House are committed to strengthening the safety and security of our citizens and our country.
If hon. members want a more strategic and effective approach to safety and security issues, if they want a more coherent and robust structure for public safety, and if they want increased collaboration within and between governments in Canada and with our allies abroad, then their only responsible choice will be to support this proposed legislation. I believe my hon. colleagues do endorse these goals. They are in the best interests of all Canadians and Bill C-6 provides the legislative framework to facilitate their achievement.
I do not need to remind the members of the House that we live in an increasingly interconnected, complex, and often dangerous world, a time when new threats have emerged and old conflicts find new expression, and a time when the responsibility to protect the security of Canadians has never been more compelling or the array of dangers more diverse.
(1140)
[Translation]
Technology has given terrorists new reach and new weapons. The horrific events of September 11 and the bombings of commuter trains in Madrid in March of this year reminded us all that terrorism knows no boundaries nor respects any life.
And as one of the countries named specifically by Osama bin Laden, Canada is well aware of the dangers we face.
[English]
Canadians expect their government to take concrete action to show that we take these threats seriously. They expect their government to implement a comprehensive cost cutting approach that brings together governments, security and intelligence, law enforcement, and other stakeholders in the most efficient way possible.
[Translation]
Canadians want us to work in sync, not in silos, to coordinate more effectively and work more efficiently. Quite simply, in the face of new realities, Canadians expect us to work in new ways, across jurisdictions, across disciplines and across borders. And that is exactly what the government proposes with the bill that is before us today.
Allow me now to express appreciation for the Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. In recent weeks, the committee held in-depth discussions on Bill C-6—discussions that enriched our appreciation for issues pertaining to public safety and emergency preparedness.
It was clear that members on all sides of the House shared a deep and abiding concern for the safety and security of this country and its citizens. Although the government did not always agree with all the comments and proposed amendments, we respected that committee members were trying to make the legislation the best it could be.
[English]
In that same spirit, I rise in the House today at report stage of Bill C-6 with a key amendment. The amendment concerns clause 6 which explains the functions of the minister. Specifically, the government moves to amend clause 6 by replacing lines 18 to 20 with the following wording “performing his or her duties and functions, the Minister may”. The effect of the amendment is to remove additional wording put it in a Bloc amendment at committee stage that added the words “and with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories”. The government opposes the Bloc motion to include this additional wording and we do so on several important grounds.
First, the public safety file is one on which there has been a strong history of cooperation between the federal government and the provinces. In fact, Bill C-6 contains a provision expressly calling for continued cooperation between the two levels of government. The Government of Canada fully understands that respect for provincial jurisdiction is a fundamental principle of our Constitution. It goes without saying that the Minister of Public Safety will continue to respect provincial jurisdiction in the exercise of her powers. Removing the wording added by the Bloc in no way affects or diminishes the minister's responsibility to respect constitutional divisions of powers and authorities. In fact, it reinforces it.
Second, clause 4(1) of Bill C-6 already sets that out. It states that:
|
The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction... |
In fact, clause 4(1) uses the standard formula for departmental statutes to provide that the powers, duties and functions of the minister can only be exercised within the bounds of federal jurisdiction. The current wording actually undermines rather than reinforces the constitutional presumption that Parliament and provincial legislatures will act within their jurisdiction and that their respective delegates will act within the bounds of the law.
At best, the amendment is unnecessary. At worst, it introduces ambiguity. There is a presumption of statutory interpretation that words in a statute are intended to mean something. Either the amendment restates the obligation of the minister to respect the Constitution, in which case it is unnecessary, or the amendment could be read by the courts as signifying a change from the existing administrative or constitutional requirements governing the exercise of the minister's powers, which is ambiguous and unacceptable.
My final point is that the Bloc amendment sets a precedent and could call into question the interpretation of other statutes that do not contain such a provision. Removing the wording provided through the Bloc amendment will ensure the legislation conforms to accepted legislative drafting and avoids the serious concerns I have just described.
There could be no doubt that we must create a department of public safety and emergency preparedness. Our world, with its vast range of natural and man-made threats, demands a strategic and effective response to protect the safety and security of Canadians. In times of crisis, Canadians want seamless cooperation across governments that hold the safety and security of our citizens as our guiding principle and most profound responsibility.
The proposed legislation provides the necessary legal foundation for the department. It is my hope that in the interests of all Canadians it will receive the full support of all members of the House.
(1145)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this debate. I am also pleased to see you in the chair.
[English]
Bill C-6 has been described many times as a bill of a housekeeping nature. For all intents and purposes, the new department of public safety and emergency preparedness has been operating for over six months. True to form, the Liberal government has been somewhat slow in bringing about the enabling legislation, although it was very quick to begin acting in such a way and having the department empowered, which this legislation would do, has not prevented it from making a number of important and serious decisions that flow from the department itself.
The parliamentary secretary to the minister just said that although the amendment by the Bloc is redundant and harmless he argues at the same time that it would set some sort of precedent.
We in the Conservative Party do not agree with that assessment. I do not see this as precedent setting. This is a new legislation that would enable this new department. Therefore it is not setting a precedent in such a way.
I totally disagree with the idea that giving clarity to provinces and territories over their jurisdiction is somehow repugnant or will cause ambiguity. In fact, putting in writing the commitment that those provincial and territorial jurisdictions will be respected is exactly the type of thing that I believe those jurisdictions are looking for.
One only has to recall what happened as recently as yesterday where the Prime Minister reneged on a commitment to the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to know there is a little paranoia when it comes to the government's word and commitment to regions. Therefore I strongly believe that the Bloc amendment is extremely justified.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Peter MacKay: We have a lot of chirping coming from the hon. member from Newfoundland because he knows full well that he broke his word to his province. His word was not consistent at all with what he said during the election to garner votes. I think the people of his home province will see that and will recognize it the next time. While the hon. member opposite continues to chirp away, we know and the people of his province know full well that his word does not really amount to a pound of salt herring.
The Conservative Party supports the legislation. We support the principle behind setting up this new department, which we did 10 years ago. Ironically, as members of the day will recall, the Liberal Party in opposition adamantly opposed bringing together a department similar to what we see in the United States and what it refers to as its homeland security.
The amendment put forward by the Conservative Party, which was accepted at the committee and forms part of the new legislation, was proposed in essence because there was ambiguity in the original legislation. It talked about entities in an open-ended way as opposed to simply listing them as they appear in other parts of the bill. Those entities include the RCMP, CSIS, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canada Firearms Centre, which I will come back to, the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board.
The reason for the amendment is that we want to see those departments named in the bill so that we are able to track some of these entities, in particular, the Canada Firearms Centre. The Canada Firearms Centre was initially in the Department of Justice. It was then moved to the Solicitor General's department. It is now into this new entity called public safety and emergency preparedness.
We want to draw attention to the fact that we are keeping a very close eye, particularly on the budget and spending allotments as they pertain to the Canada Firearms Centre. We have concerns over the funding and over the way in which it is operating.
I would submit that one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public has occurred when it comes to the Canada Firearms Centre. What was supposed to be a $2 million allotment has turned into an expenditure of the public purse now approaching $2 billion. No one has yet been able to adequately set out the case that this is justified in the way of protecting the public.
We have seen effort after effort by the government, new computer systems, new software, new locations, efforts that have been made in particular on the public relations side as opposed to the effective public protection side, which is what we oppose. This is not about gun control. The Conservative Party has a long record of supporting gun control, supporting public protection, supporting the police and supporting our security forces. What this is about is a public relations exercise.
(1150)
I want to draw attention to a recent example in which the Canada Firearms Centre announced that it intends to spend no new money, zero new funds, on gun safety education in the next year but that it plans to dish out approximately $3 million for a public relations exercise and a communications strategy. This was confirmed by the centre itself.
Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister said that the main goal of the program was public safety and yet the supporting documentation around the expenditures over the next year show zero money allotted for public safety. One would wonder why we want to see in writing, clearly set out in the bill, the expenditures and efforts made to continue this fiasco called the long gun registration.
We support the bill. We support the effort to share information. We support every effort to give our policing and security forces the necessary resources and support from government. What we do not support is a further shell game and act of deception on the part of the government in terms of keeping this ill-fated boondoggle of a registry alive.
I want to return to the amendment made by my colleague, the Bloc member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. This similarly puts forward an amendment that would put in writing within the bill that there will be no intrusion on provincial jurisdiction. The government is now trying to change back to its original form of what happened at the committee.
There was support from other parties on that particular amendment and the amendment itself is one that simply adds a degree of certainty to the protection of provincial and territorial jurisdiction. We supported that effort then and we continue to support it. We do not believe it is binding in terms of future legislation and we do not believe it is precedent setting.
The Department of the Solicitor General, the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness and the National Crime Prevention Centre are well established within the legislation. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is responsible for those entities.
One of the great ironies that I found in reviewing the legislation and seeing the word “entities” is that in Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation, when the word “entities” is used in that context in that bill what they are talking about is terrorist activities referred to as entities. Here we have another bill where we are talking about anti-terrorism and Canadian national security forces that are similarly referred to as entities. I see that as a glaring contradiction.
It is important that we have this coordinated effort to form a strategy and to put forward adequate support and resources in the fight against global terrorism and threats in North America. I agree with the comments of the parliamentary secretary about the importance of a coordinated and diligent effort in that regard.
Recently the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, also known as FINTRAC, reported that three years after the crackdown on terror financing, those who backed violent causes remain in Canada and continue to use this country as a base for bank-rolling some of the bloodshed that we see playing out around the world. Investigators found that $70 million worth of suspected terrorist financing was still taking place in Canada this year. That is more than three times the amount that was detected in 2003. We still have work to do here at home and abroad.
We also continue to have a need to bring together our ties with the United States of America and, I would suggest, Mexico, to ensure that we have very close coordinated efforts here in North America in exploring the possibility of a security perimeter.
The Conservative Party supports the legislation to enable this new department. We believe it is an important effort on behalf of the House of Commons and all Canadians.
(1155)
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first, we certainly recognize the value of Bill C-6 as a whole and we will support it, as we did when it was first introduced in this House. However, we are here to discuss the amendment proposed by the government, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Serge Ménard: I understand that there are discussions in this House, however, I am the only one at the microphone right now.
We examined this bill at committee and we realized that, as is common practice, the powers given to the minister are considerable. As this is a shared jurisdiction and as it is necessary that it be shared anyway, for reasons of efficiency, we want to make sure the federal government is aware this time that the provincial and territorial jurisdictions must be respected.
We presented our arguments to all of the members of the committee, composed of representatives of all parties in the House, and the majority of those representatives, who represent a majority of the Canadian population, also recognized that the addition we were proposing was necessary in the current context, but also in a context that probably amounts to the history of the last 40 years, that is to say the continual and systematic intrusion of the federal government in provincial jurisdictions.
The amendment that we proposed to clause 6 began as follows:
|
6. (1) In exercising his or her powers...the Minister may-- |
It all seems very innocent, but when one reads about all the powers that are given thereafter and when one sees what public security is, one notices that there are quite a few areas which belong to the provinces. For example, there are provincial prisons. There are also effective civil security organizations which—and I have noticed this—differ from one province to another. Not only are they well established, but they meet local needs. We realized that these powers were considerable. We wanted the minister, whoever he may be, to continue to exercise these considerable powers with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories. It was this wording, “with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories”, that we proposed as an amendment and that representatives of the majority of the Canadian population decided to approve.
The amendment the government is proposing now would supersede the one unanimously approved in committee. This shows how this government, which in this current legislative context does not have a majority, neither in the House nor in committee, is trying not to take the amendments proposed by the committees into account. Knowing that the government would probably want to go this way, I had asked that a second amendment be made to the last clause of the bill. This seemingly innocuous section says:
|
38. The provisions of this Act, other than sections 35 and 36, come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. |
This wording allows the government to enforce the act without taking into account any amendments approved by committees.
Indeed, government members can always say that the sentence I just read is a provision of this act:
|
6. (1) “--and with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories--” |
Consequently, I proposed an amendment and I had the support of all the members of the committee to amend this clause to read:
|
38. This Act, other than sections 35 and 36, comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. |
It is obvious that this was not a pointless precaution, since I presume that if the amendment it is proposing now is defeated, the government would probably try not to enforce the amendments adopted by Parliament.
(1200)
Even though I suspect that several voters did not want to elect a minority government, but rather a majority government formed by the party of their choice, I would like to point out that a minority government reflects the diverse points of view found in Canadian society as a whole. Thus its stands to reason that a government which is the result of this new minority situation shows some humility and accepts the improvements proposed by those who represent the majority of Canadians.
This is clearly the case here. The federal government has a long history of interfering in areas under provincial jurisdiction. I do not have the time now to list all its intrusions, but suffice to say that today the federal government spends more money in areas under provincial jurisdiction than in its own areas of jurisdiction. As a matter of fact someone back home had fun compiling the latest federal intrusions just over the past three years and putting a dollar figure on them. The number arrived at is rather impressive: the new federal intrusions in areas under provincial jurisdiction amounted to $4.476 billion.
Here are a few examples. Health information technologies: $600 million in 2002-03. The Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment—health is an area under provincial jurisdiction—: $5 million in 2003-04, and $10 million the following year. Patient's security: $20 million over three years. Health governance and accountability: $70 million in 2002-03, $15 million the following year, $30 million the year after that, for a total of $115 million. National Immunization Strategy: $15 million. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation: $25 million. Managing pharmaceuticals: $40 million over the past two years. Planning, coordinating and partnership: $10 million in 2003-04, and $20 million in 2004-05. Health services for official language minorities: $12 million and $13 million over the last two years.
Early education and child care—clearly another matter of provincial jurisdiction—$25 million in 2003-2004, $81 million in 2004-2005, and we know what is coming next. Support to employability of the handicapped: $193 million per year in the past two years. The strategy for children and the family law—truly one of the foundations of the constitutional accord which may have existed in 1840 and later in 1867—another area where the government has found a way to intervene—$27 million in 2003-2004 and $26 million in 2004-2005. There are also the affordable housing initiatives. I could go on and on; I have 29 items and I have not even gone through half the list. I believe other speakers will have an opportunity to say more.
It is a mistake to talk about something that is useless here and to point it out in a number of acts to the federal government. Among his arguments, the government representative said that there has always been a high level of cooperation between provinces in civil security matters, and that it goes without saying that things will remain that way. If it goes without saying, why would things get worse by saying it?
I myself was very open to cooperation with the federal government when I was the Minister of Public Security in Quebec. For example, I supervised the establishment of the Carcajou squad, which had some considerable success in the fight against organized crime, especially against biker gangs. As soon as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police showed its desire to cooperate in this new type of fight against organized crime, and especially to bring together investigators with access to various sources of information, I agreed to do so.
(1205)
In conclusion, I think that other speakers will have an opportunity to raise many other arguments against this amendment.
* * *
[English]
Business of the House
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties regarding the course of this evening's debate in the committee of the whole of the main estimates. I believe that you would find consent for the following motion. I move:
|
That notwithstanding Standing Order 81(4)(a), within each 15 minute period, each party may allocate time to one or more of its members for speeches or for questions and answers, provided that, in the case of questions and answers, the minister's answers approximately reflect the time taken by the question, and provided that, in the case of speeches, members of the party to which the period is allocated may speak one after the other. |
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act
[Government Orders]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee and of Motion No. 1.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6 has been referred to as a housekeeping bill. I suppose that is reasonably accurate. The government has moved on this, quite a bit later than it should have given the announcement that came with regard to this type of legislation almost a year ago when the present Prime Minister became Prime Minister. It is simply an attempt on the part of the government to consolidate the functioning of our security forces, the work that we do both nationally and internationally with regard to the security of our citizenry.
As we have heard, all parties are in support of this legislation. In effect it is a very short bill when the amendments to other legislation are taken out. It simply consolidates a number of the agencies.
I do want to say that the provisions in the bill that were placed before the justice committee were such that it was responded to in a cooperative fashion by the committee. I believe it is an attempt by all parties to cooperate and make the minority government situation not only function but function well. I believe we went quite some distance in achieving that.
I have to say perhaps as an aside that questions remain with regard to the restructuring of our security forces, but in a spirit of cooperation those concerns were set aside by the committee to be addressed at a future date.
I will mention one of the items. There was some discussion as to whether the agencies that fall within the purview of the minister, in this case the Deputy Prime Minister, are as broad as they could be. I spent a good deal of my summer dealing with security issues, both in this country and internationally. What kept coming up was this need to have cooperation to make sure we do not create silos where we have territorial infighting and protection of our own territory, at times to the detriment of the security in the country. We heard that from our allies in the United States, England and Australia. It was a common theme.
This legislation goes some distance toward achieving that, but as I say, it does not bring in all of our security agencies. This is a question that was raised at the committee, but in a sense of cooperation we put off the question so this bill could move forward quickly and we could begin to do this coordination that everyone agreed was necessary.
The sense of cooperation was there and was acted upon. A number of amendments got proposed, two of which passed. I want to make mention of one that did not. It was not proposed by committee members but by the Privacy Commissioner.
There is no question that the Privacy Commissioner had valid concerns about the issue of privacy and in fact the security of information that is gathered by our security forces, both domestically and internationally. We have heard a great deal about the use that the Patriot Act is being put to by our American allies. This is one of the areas where we would be concerned. There was a concern expressed about the way this information is used, in particular because of the suspicions in the Arar case about it being used improperly. For that, we will wait for the outcome of Justice O'Connor's report and recommendations.
Those issues were raised. Again, in this sense and spirit of cooperation that was in the committee, we indicated to the Privacy Commissioner and to the government that we were prepared to set those concerns aside to be dealt with later, either within the scope of this legislation and bill or in other areas, but it would be a matter that we would address down the road. We felt it was simply too important to get this legislation in place so we proceeded on that basis and in fact did so expeditiously.
One of the controversial issues that is now before the House is that the government, in response to the report from the committee when this bill was reported out at report stage, has now moved this amendment. It would in effect overturn the amendment that we received from the Bloc member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, wherein he wanted to draw clear jurisdictional lines between the federal government, the provinces and the territories.
(1210)
All three of the opposition parties supported that approach. We in the NDP do not believe, as was suggested by the parliamentary secretary earlier this morning, that the implications of passing this amendment do not set a permanent type of precedent. He admitted he was not a constitutional expert and he is right in that regard, if in fact he was going to take that position. The long term effect is that it will be in the bill and in the law. We have indicated that at that time, and I will repeat it now on behalf of my party, we are going to address the issue of provincial and territorial rights vis-à-vis the federal government on a file by file, bill by bill and law by law basis.
In this case, it is appropriate, because again one of the things that I think was drawn very clearly to our attention this summer as the committee did its work on public security is the amount of additional work being done in intelligence gathering and in public security, work that has traditionally been done at the federal level and by federal police agencies and services and is now being done in a cooperative fashion with the provincial and municipal police forces in the country.
We want it to be very clear that although this cooperation has been extended by those government agencies at the provincial and municipal level, we did not want to see an incursion by the federal government into what have been traditional areas of responsibility for the provinces and territories in accordance with our constitutional framework in this country.
The motion that was put forward for an amendment by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin was appropriate. It is one that in the circumstances we supported and we continue to support now. We are clearly saying to the government we will not support it returning the bill to the state it was in when it got to committee.
I want to make one final point with regard to that. We as a party have argued that we need to expand the role of the committees in the House and the government and within our constitutional framework. It is part of the democratic deficit to which the Prime Minister is very fond of referring, but I have to say that we have to question his sincerity at a time like this when the committee clearly discussed this issue. It was a full discussion. Members listened to the opinions from all sides and said to the government that in this case the amendment was appropriate. That was a clearly democratic process. It is one that should in fact be honoured by the government, so we draw to the attention of the House the fact that the government is ignoring all of the platitudes that it has put out around democratic deficit and the need for reform when it moves this type of amendment at report stage.
The committee discussed it. The committee went through a democratic process. The committee reached a decision and has now reported that decision to the House. That should be honoured by the government and by the House.
In conclusion, I will say that we are supportive of the bill but we are going to insist that the amendments that were passed at committee be honoured by the House.
(1215)
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by pointing out that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill. Today at report stage, it is not a question of whether or not to create a Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness but rather the unavowed yet obvious desire of the federal government to trample over areas of provincial jurisdiction.
In committee—as has just been said—we reached a decision. We might have expected this government, which loved to pay lip service to the principle of enhancing the role of MPs, to respect the work and role of those same MPs particularly in committee.
I think it is extremely idealistic wishful thinking to believe that the government was going to stick to the principles it has been making so much of in recent months. It has been claiming these principles, crossing its heart: that this democratic institution needed to have its true role and importance restored to it, that MPs needed to feel they had more of a say, more of a role. Yet, as the old saying goes, the leopard can never change his spots.
The government has found nothing better to do, during the report stage consideration of a bill that has just come back from committee, than to slough off everything that committee has done, in its usual arrogant way. “We are the ones who possess the truth. We have decided that the MPs on the committee were mistaken, that they were wrong, and so, despite the points of view they defended in committee, we are going back to the original version, the right one. We are right, so we are going to reimpose our original point of view, and who cares what members in committee may have said or thought during the committee deliberations. That is all there is to it.”
Like I said, this is the same arrogant, disrespectful, haughty, and condescending attitude the government takes towards not only the public in general, but also elected representatives in the House. What is happening here today is distressing and sad.
We had hoped the government would be true to its principles and respect the point of views of parliamentarians. But it seems that was not to be.
To go back to the substance of the debate today, we are being told we should reinstate in the bill the reference to the minister's duties and functions, that being an indirect reference to his or her constitutional responsibilities. The government does not want to spell out what it means by “duties and functions” of the minister because vagueness leaves room to manoeuvre. It is talking about the duties and functions of the minister, but we should understand here that it is referring to the constitutional duties and functions of the minister.
The parliamentary secretary did not hesitate to tell in committee, “The minister will not act in a way that is unconstitutional.” More on that later.
But I would like to quote one of the officials who appeared before the committee during the clause by clause examination of the bill. He told us:
|
If this sets a precedent in how this minister's powers ought to be interpreted, a court, in interpreting another minister's powers in legislation that didn't have such a reference...that would be a question that would have to be explored in terms of how you interpret statutes. |
Mr. Pentney made that remark because, in his opinion, the original wording of the bill, which the government seeks to reinstate today by talking about the duties and functions of the minister, suggesting that they are constitutional duties and functions, was a much more positive way of saying things, rather than be more specific and write “with due regard to the powers conferred on theprovinces and territories”.
(1220)
Consequently, according to him, we wanted to say the same thing. Curiously, a little later, he said that even if we said the same thing, the courts could interpret it differently.
So, as would say the former mayor of Gatineau, it seems that there is something fishy going on. If both formulations mean the same thing, why then are they suggesting, as Mr. Pentney clearly does, that the courts could interpret them differently? If the two formulations mean the same thing, why is the government concerned that the courts could interpret them differently? We believe there is cause for concern because the government is concerned. If the government wants to go back to the initial wording, it is surely because, as I said a moment ago, it wants to cut itself some slack.
For that matter, I would like to come back to the affirmation of the parliamentary secretary, who said the minister would not violate the Constitution. With great respect, I would say that the government violates every day its own Constitution. It infringes constantly on the powers of provinces, of Quebec and of the territories. Indeed, the Bloc has shown that 44% of the government's budgetary spending for 2002-03 was in areas of provincial and territorial jurisdiction, and not its own.
In this respect, I would like to quote one of the conclusions of the Léonard committee report. I can see the hon. member for Joliette who also worked on this committee. It was established by the Bloc Québécois to study federal government spending and the ways it accentuates the phenomenon of fiscal imbalance.
The Léonard report said that if intrusive spending is compared to truly federal spending, excluding debt servicing, the federal government now spends more in Quebec's fields of jurisdiction than in its own fields. That says a lot.
The federal government spends almost more money in other fields of jurisdiction than in its own. The results are obvious. The federal government has been withdrawing from its own jurisdictions, perhaps because it thinks they are less visible and it wants more visibility. It wants the citizens to be more aware of what it is doing, which means that it invests more in fields that affect them more directly. I think it is part of the federal government's unhealthy desire to sell itself, make itself look good and advertise itself.
Although we agree in principle with Bill C-6, the fact remains that this bill gives the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness a number of powers that infringe on those of the provinces. Therefore, it is important to make it clear in the bill that everything must be done in complete respect for provincial jurisdictions and in cooperation with the provinces and territories in order to prevent the federal government barging in and dictating its orders in fields that do not normally belong to it.
I am thinking, for example, of emergency preparedness, public health, the establishment, maintenance and administration of prisons and reformatories in each province, or of strictly local natural disasters. Certainly, when there is a disaster, federal assistance is appreciated, but it must be requested. I will close by mentioning the administration of justice.
(1225)
For all these reasons, we shall oppose the government amendment before us today.
[English]
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-6, which establishes the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. It takes the old responsibilities of the Department of the Solicitor General, the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness, and the National Crime Prevention Centre and puts them all together. The bill also provides for the reporting structure of CSIS, the RCMP, the Correctional Service of Canada, the National Parole Board, the Canada Firearms Centre, and the Canada Border Services Agency.
I would be remiss if I did not question why it took the government a year to bring this legislation forward in the House. The Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was announced on December 12, 2003 when the new Prime Minister came in and first revealed his cabinet.
Immediately following 9/11 the United States government responded by establishing the department of homeland security, but it has taken this government a number of years to follow suit, despite recommendations to do so from many national security experts, the opposition and even former foreign affairs minister John Manley.
This new department is certainly not without precedent. A public security ministry was created by the Conservative government of Kim Campbell in 1993. Kim Campbell did so in response to the terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center. She responded very quickly following the World Trade Center bombing and came forward with the public security ministry. It was modelled after the British home office and was headed by the former Conservative member of Parliament and solicitor general Doug Lewis. The new department was mandated to coordinate all of Canada's enforcement agencies, including the RCMP, CSIS and customs and immigration.
That department, as we all know, was scrapped by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien when he came into power in 1993. Unfortunately, that was the first step the government took in dismantling much of our security and intelligence gathering agencies and resourcing them. That was a very swift first step and over the last 10 years we have seen the repercussions from that. September 11 certainly called into question the wisdom of that decision by that prime minister.
We have long recognized on this side of the House that something had to be done to stop the duplication, the lack of coordination and communication between the many different federal departments and agencies with national security responsibilities and capabilities.
In a 1996 review of national security information systems and cooperation between agencies, the Auditor General discovered a pattern of inadequate information to support front line officials who are responsible for national security. Based on the assessments and observations of the Auditor General's report, we had recommended a realignment of all those departments with intelligence and enforcement capabilities under one existing umbrella. The opposition's recommendation was further substantiated by the most recent report from the Auditor General.
In March of this year the Auditor General once again revealed that there were significant gaps and errors in national security. Ms. Fraser found that there are major deficiencies in inter-agency cooperation and out of date terrorist watch lists. In one instance she showed where there could be up to 4,500 airport employees who have “possible criminal associations warranting further investigation”.
Furthermore, her report showed that officers at border crossings are not provided with any information regarding the 25,000 Canadian passports that go missing annually.
The Auditor General found:
|
The government as a whole failed to adequately assess intelligence lessons learned from critical incidents such as September 11-- |
Ms. Fraser also noted:
|
Clearly, the deficiencies we've noted are serious and need to be addressed on an urgent basis. |
The operative word is “urgent”. Yet we are only now seeing legislation that should have been brought in immediately following 9/11 or at the very least, last December.
(1230)
In July of this year the Minister of Public Safety was provided a copy of the 9/11 commission report. The 9/11 report, which was tabled after more than 18 months of hearings, contains several references to Canada, including the fact that a Tunisian Canadian was trained to be an al-Qaeda hijacker. That is in the United States 9/11 commission report.
According to a July National Post article, the Minister of Public Safety said, “There were few revelations that will affect Canadian policy making”. How unfortunate. Let me read a couple of the recommendations that were in the United States report: tightening the border controls and fingerprinting or photographing everyone who enters from a foreign country; and the establishment of a single integrated intelligence gathering agency.
The public safety minister claims that the Canadian government has already addressed many of the concerns expressed in the United States report. I guess we will have to wait until later this month to determine whether the minister's statement is in fact accurate. I for one remain very skeptical, especially after reading an article in the Ottawa Citizen which said:
|
Auditor General Sheila Fraser is expected [in November] to expose serious flaws in the government's ability to handle civil disasters and threats from terrorists and organized crime in an extensive audit of security at Canada's airports, marine ports and emergency preparedness infrastructure. But officials in the Public Safety Department suggest the audit will indicate that the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness (OCIPEP) is not adequately prepared to deal with a large-scale national disaster or terrorist attack. |
I also remain very skeptical that our intelligence and security forces will be properly resourced to effectively combat terrorism and organized crime.
As I have stated in the House repeatedly over the last four years, the government's slashing and gouging of the RCMP and of CSIS since 1993 has resulted in a serious shortfall in personnel, in people working in those agencies.
On a final note, I would like to point out that it was only recently that immigration officials at the Canadian border were made members of the new Canada Border Services Agency. The Minister of Public Safety had neglected to bring this union under her purview.
Quite obviously the minister finally saw the wisdom in the immigration officials' arguments and concerns that excluded them from the new agency. She recognized finally that it posed a clear danger to the security of Canadians. These immigration workers are responsible for determining which individuals deserve extra scrutiny as they come to the border. They argued the situation meant they may not have access to the latest availability in security information.
In closing, the bill is in some ways inconsequential as far as what we see the government doing. It is giving an already formed department the authority to operate, but we have to view what we see here through the eyes of the national security. I would like to read a quote from today's National Post:
|
If Canadians need further evidence that their government is not taking the terrorist threat seriously, they have it now. Last month, the government quietly passed regulations relating to the Safe Third Country Agreement, a deal relating to the treatment of asylum seekers signed between Canada and the United States almost two years ago. These regulations should cause Canadians serious concern. |
|
The agreement itself is a shocking example of irresponsibility on the part of our elected representatives. |
The article goes on to mention the fear and the concern dealing with national security.
(1235)
When we talk about national security, there is an old statement. Sometimes one of my children will say to my other child, “actions speak louder than words”. With this government, its inaction is deafening.
(1240)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the debate on Motion No. 1 in connection with Bill C-6.
I would like to start my speech by congratulating the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who has demonstrated, since the beginning, an unflagging vigilance in this file. I remind you that, when the bill was introduced, while saying he was, like the Bloc Quebecois, in agreement with the principle of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, he immediately expressed his concerns about possible constitutional interference.
In this context, in his first speech on the issue, he announced his intention and that of the Bloc Quebecois, to clarify a number of clauses of Bill C-6, to make sure that we were talking about the same thing. In committee, he proposed an amendment to ensure that clause 6 made it clear that the minister's responsibilities would be established in accordance with the constitutional division of powers. I remind the House that relative to the minister's powers, duties and functions, the member had added the following: “performing his or her duties and functions, the Minister may—” A series of powers are listed thereafter.
This is the amendment that was tabled in committee and that was adopted by the vast majority of its members. Now the bill is back in the House and, surprise—as the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes clearly illustrated—Motion No. 1 strikes the amendment adopted by the committee.
The argument put forth by the parliamentary secretary is that, in any case, the federal government is always respectful of the constitutional jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec. Of course, these comments cannot constitute an adequate guarantee, not only for the members of this House, but particularly for those who, like us, care about Quebec's best interests.
Also, if the federal government is indeed sincere in its desire to respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and of the provinces, what is the problem with including it in the bill? It seems to me that if there was not something else behind Motion No. 1, which strikes the amendment carried at committee, the government would agree with the committee's decision.
Unfortunately, there is something else and we know it. This was mentioned a number of times, but it is worth repeating. The reason is that, for some 40 years now, the federal government's approach has been to centralize powers in Ottawa, something which does not respect the jurisdictions of the provinces, and particularly those of Quebec.
The hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes alluded to the work done by the Léonard committee. I sat on that committee and I can tell the House that, while this did not come as a surprise, when we looked at the federal government's spending, we noticed that, except for the debt, most of the federal government's expenditures are in the jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec. Last year, the federal government spent more money in provincial jurisdictions than in its own. This illustrates the fiscal imbalance. All opposition parties agree with the Bloc Québécois that this fiscal imbalance should be corrected.
We cannot trust the nice rhetoric of the parliamentary secretary or of this government; we can only trust what will be put in writing in this bill. We think it is absolutely essential that this amendment be included in the final version of the bill.
I know that the parliamentary secretary referred to clause 4, saying that it already sets things out. Let me read that clause. It states that the “powers, duties and functions of the minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction... relating to public safety—” And clause 4 goes on. Members will understand that what that clause says is not that the powers, duties and functions of the minister can only be exercised over matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction. This is a broader, more general statement. Again, it leaves the door open to infringement by the federal government. That is why we feel it is essential that the amendment adopted by the committee, which specifies that the minister shall act “with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories”, be included in clause 6.
I also find rather ironic and amusing that this issue of respect for the jurisdictions of any government, be it the federal, provincial or Quebec government, is discussed the same day that the establishment of Social Development and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada is announced. Social matters are a provincial jurisdiction.
(1245)
The federal government is creating a department of social development. Why? To better orchestrate its infringements upon areas of jurisdiction that come under the provinces and Quebec.
The status of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada is being formalized. It is no secret that education comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. In Quebec, we are particularly touchy about our jurisdiction over education being respected. Like we are often reminded by the hon. member for Saint-Lambert, it is through education that culture is maintained, the culture of a nation, Quebec's culture, its psyche, as he says jokingly, and its soul.
Today, on the very day it is announcing, in its Motion No. 1, its intention to strike out the committee's amendment concerning respect for the constitutional jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec, the federal government is also announcing the establishment of Social Development and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.
This fits in perfectly with the Speech from the Throne. Members will recall that it contained all sorts of references to health and education, and even to the recognition of foreign credentials. The Office des professions, Quebec's professions board, comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec. It is absolutely none of the federal government's business.
It is absolutely vital that this amendment be included in the bill, especially with a Liberal government that has shown its centralizing tendencies for several decades now.
What strikes me in this case is that the federal government wants to remove this reference to the respect of provincial jurisdictions while it will not even take its responsibilities in its own jurisdictions.
Take, for example, employment insurance. How many times have the ministers and the government, the Prime Minister himself, said that they will reform employment insurance because, as everyone will agree, it no longer fulfills the purpose for which it was created? And yet nothing has changed, not after the 2000 election and not after the last one.
At the same time that this bill is being introduced, we learn that 9 RCMP detachments will be closed in Quebec, including the Joliette detachment. It is absolutely unbelievable to see how determined this government is to keep the door open to infringement upon the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces while it is unable to take its responsibilities in its own fields of jurisdiction.
I was telling you about the RCMP, the employment insurance, but we could very well refer also to the whole debate on national defence. We do not have a policy on national defence in Canada, but it would seem that the choice has already been made to take part in the American missile shield project.
There is something fundamental behind this motion, behind the debate on this amendment. Not only does it deal with respect for the constitutional jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec, but it urges us to ask the federal government to take its own responsibilities that it does not assume, whether it be on employment insurance—I mentioned this earlier—public safety or the national defence issue.
Thus, it is absolutely essential to include this amendment in Bill C-6. Everyone says so, everyone agrees in principle on having due regard for the jurisdictions of both levels of government. You will agree with me that, logically and honestly, there is no reason to support this Motion No. 1.
I will invite not only the opposition parties, but also the government party to seriously reflect on the possibility of voting against its own motion. Indeed, as members who spoke before me have mentioned, the government is in a minority situation. I think that, in this context, it makes sense that the government should withdraw its own motion or vote against it.
Anyway, one thing is very clear, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion. We want to have in the bill a written guarantee that there will be due regard for the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec in particular.
(1250)
[English]
Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise to speak in support of Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the amend or repeal certain other acts.
I know I do not need to remind the members of the House that we live in an increasingly interconnected, complex and often dangerous world. It is a time when new threats have emerged and old hatreds find new expression. It is a time when the responsibility to protect the security of Canadians has never been more compelling, or the array of dangers more diverse. It is an environment in which old planning assumptions simply no longer hold and the implausible is now plausible, where we must prepare for the unforeseen and respond to the unexpected.
Technology has given terrorists new reach and new weapons. The horrific events of September 11 and the bombings of commuter trains in Madrid in March of this year reminded us all that terrorism knows no boundaries nor respects any life. As one of the countries named specifically by Osama bin Laden, Canada is well aware of the dangers we face.
On a more personal note, I am one MP in the House who happened to have been in Washington on 9/11, in meetings in downtown Washington, when the planes crashed, an experience which drove home the need to be ever vigilant as we move forward.
While terrorism is perhaps the highest profile threat, it is by no means the only one. There is the danger posed by the growing number of failed or failing states, which can serve as a haven for both terrorists and organized crime, contributing to global instability. Indeed, organized crime is a growing problem as it develops globalized networks that support the narcotics trade, weapons smuggling, money laundering, theft including identity theft, commercial fraud and extortion, as well as migrant smuggling and trafficking in persons.
Canadians also face the danger posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including biological and chemical agents, weapons dangerous under any circumstances, but particularly so if they were to fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue states.
We also face new threats to our critical infrastructure. During the blackout of August 2003, we were again reminded of just how dependent we have become and therefore how vulnerable we are in a world connected by computer networks.
There are also natural disasters, and many parts of our country have been hit and hit hard in recent years by ice storms, floods, forest fires and even hurricanes. Lives were lost, property was destroyed, livelihoods ruined and the work of a lifetime wiped out in a matter of hours.
Certainly with the devastating impact of the SARS virus, the avian flu and mad cow, Canadians understand how highly mobile diseases can affect our health, our communities and our economy.
However, if the list is daunting, the responsibility is clear. Canadians expect their government to act and to act in all areas on all fronts. They know the dangers we face do not fit into neat little boxes and neither should our planning. What is needed is a comprehensive, cross-cutting approach, bringing together all the key players and services in the most efficient way possible.
Canadians want us to work in sync, not in silos, to coordinate more effectively and work more efficiently. Quite simply, in the face of the new normal, the new realities, Canadians expect us to work in new ways across jurisdictions, across disciplines and across borders. That is exactly what the government is proposing through the legislation before us today.
Bill C-6 brings together in one place the core functions of security and intelligence, policing and law enforcement, corrections and crime prevention, border services facilitation and emergency preparedness. It includes what many would consider the traditional core agencies associated with public safety, such as the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, the RCMP, Correctional Services, the Canada Firearms Centre, the National Parole Board and the Canada Border Services Agency.
As a result, we are now in a position to provide a truly integrated response to all manner of emergencies and threats to our security, whether they be health related, natural disasters or from terrorists. This is a crucial capacity. After all, whether the disaster is deliberate, as in the case of terrorist attack, or accidental, as in the case of natural catastrophes like ice storms, or simply unforeseen and unforeseeable, as in the case of hazardous spills, fires or industrial accidents, the impact on Canadians can be equally devastating. Whether an electrical grid, for example, is shut down by lightening or by sabotage, we still have people without power, streets without lights and hospitals without heat.
(1255)
While the elements of this new department are many, its mandate is clear: to protect the safety of Canadians. There can be no more fundamental or important role for government than that. After all, safety and security are the very foundations for every other right of citizenship, and the essential conditions for every other freedom.
What is unique about this department, its structure and composition, is that it offers Canadians an integrated response to security that covers the entire continuum of risks, from crime in their communities, to naturally occurring disasters such as flood or fires, to threats to national security.
One of the most fundamental aspects of our quality of life is the safety of our communities. That is why it is so important to get to the root causes of crime by putting in place more effective crime prevention programs, control access to firearms, and ensure effective correction and parole policies.
The addition of the national crime prevention centre to this department is a clear recognition of the fact that if we are to increase the safety of Canadians, we need to devote the resources where they are needed most, at the community level, before problems make their way into the justice system.
Other threats to the safety of our communities also exist, including, as I mentioned a moment ago, organized crime, which remains a major problem, particularly in our larger cities. Bill C-6 would enable us to work with authorities to fight organized crime and reclaim the streets for our citizens. While all threats ultimately affect individuals, threats to national security have the capacity to seriously impair the security of Canada. A growing number of international security threats could have a direct impact on the national security of Canada. We need to have the ability to move along the continuum of danger, from local dangers to national threats. We need to understand how community based issues, such as crime, can become part of larger threats to our national security.
The legislation before us would create a department with just this kind of perspective, one that would see the bigger picture and take the longer view, one that would enable us to provide a seamless response to the dangers facing Canadians, from threats to their individual liberty to those which affect their communities and threaten the nation.
This department would have the flexibility to respond and coordinate across different categories of threats, ensuring the appropriate response at the appropriate time. Moreover, by integrating these diverse but closely related responsibilities, we would be able to identify gaps more quickly, respond more quickly and communicate more effectively.
In conclusion, for the very first time, security and intelligence, policing and enforcement, corrections and crime prevention, border services and border integrity, immigration enforcement and emergency management would be brought together under one single roof, led by one senior cabinet minister. We would have the capacity to develop a truly integrated and comprehensive approach to threats from whatever source. In a world of diverse dangers, Canadians demand no more and deserve no less. I urge all members to support this very important legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6, an Act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain Acts.
First, I would like to commend my colleague and seatmate from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, for all his great work on this issue. We can tell he is very experienced in this area. Under the Parti Québécois government, he was Minister of Public Safety and Minister of Justice, and he has also been in charge of other major departments.
In his great wisdom, in committee, he moved a very simple amendment, which I will read to the House. But first, as members have now realized, the Bloc Québécois is not against the creation of a Canadian Department of Public Safety. Quebec has had its own public safety department for some time now. So, we do support this initiative.
Our only concern has to do with the very relevant comment our hon. colleague made about the amendment he put forward in committee, which was agreed on by the majority of committee members. Originally, clause 6 read as follows, “In exercising his or her powers and inperforming his or her duties and functions, the minister may”. Following the change made by my hon. colleague and the committee, it now reads, “In exercising his or her powers and in performing his or her duties and functions and with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories, the minister may”.
In this major debate we are holding today I find it redundant of the Liberal MPs to tell us that this is an important bill. Indeed, it is important, which is why it was discussed at committee and why amendments were passed by most of the members. The amendments were made simply to respect provincial jurisdictions. Once again it is the Liberals who are bringing up the issue of provincial jurisdictions. They do not want provincial jurisdictions mentioned in this bill. They are trying to tell us that is because the government always respects the jurisdictions. Like my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who was a minister in the Quebec government, I think that far too often the federal Liberal government does not respect the provincial jurisdictions.
Currently in Quebec we do not have a Parti Québécois government, but a Liberal government. Yet, for months now, we have been hearing ministers Pelletier, Reid and Séguin and Premier Charest talk repeatedly about the constant interference by the federal government in provincial jurisdictions.
That is why this amendment, as minor as it may seem, is critically important. It aims at respecting the responsibilities given under the Canadian Constitution to each province and territory. That is all this amendment is asking for.
It is once again very difficult for us in the Bloc Québécois, who defend Quebec's interests. We have never denied the fact that we are here to defend the interests of Quebeckers. That is what we are doing. My colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin is simply defending the interests of Quebeckers. In the meantime, his amendment defends the interests of the residents of all the other provinces and territories in Canada. He is calling on the federal government to respect the jurisdictions, given that this Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness comes on the heels of those created in most of the provinces and territories. That is where the problem lies.
I used to be a member a member of the Standing Committee on Transportation, just like you, Mr. Speaker. You know that in the context of the crisis that followed September 11, 2001, very significant deficiencies in Canada's security were noted. The government realized the consequences of the very irresponsible decisions it had made in the past. Let us recall the period when it withdrew the RCMP from ports and airports. This was a decision made by the federal government to save money. Well, it decided to save to the detriment on the country's security. This is a decision it made, and it realized very quickly, with the events of September 11, 2001, that it had made a mistake. It is trying to re-invest a lot of money in this area. This is why we are now seeing the creation of a Public Security Department. I can understand that, but one thing remains: the provinces already have some of those departments, Quebec, for example.
All we are want with this very simple amendment is respect. Permit me to read it again so that it be well understood: “and with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories”.
This is difficult for me. As member for d'Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, I have to live with the consequences of decisions made by the federal government, which does not give due regard to its jurisdictions. My riding includes the aboriginal territories of Kanesatake and Oka. Again, a decision was made to fix a problem. This is a mystery to no one. The reserve is going through very difficult times. That problem should have been dealt with by the federal Indian affairs department. For political reasons, not wanting to shoulder the blame for the situation, the government decided to entrust that responsibility to the province of Quebec. I would not congratulate the Minister for Public Security of Quebec, Mr. Chagnon. I would not be telling you the truth if I told you that I congratulate him. He should not have used that.
(1300)
From the outset he should have told the federal government “It is your jurisdiction. You have a department of Indian affairs, and the problems of the Kanesatake Indians should be dealt with by the department of Indian affairs”.
Once again, it is a disengagement issue. This is always happening in the federal government's areas of jurisdiction. Knowing that the federal government encroaches on provincial jurisdictions and refuses to look after its own jurisdictions, it is very difficult to see it create new departments and reject in this proposed amendment that due regard be paid to provincial and territorial areas of jurisdiction. It is difficult for us because we have to live with these situations. I gave you the example of Kanesatake in my riding, but there are other striking examples.
My colleague from Joliette talked about it earlier. There is the Employment Insurance program that the government refuses to amend, even if unanimous reports have been produced by committees, including the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Seventeen unanimous recommendations were presented. The liberal MPs supported them, but two years later, the act has still not been amended.
It took and will take the Bloc Québécois—a bill was tabled by the Bloc members yesterday—to table a bill in this House to defend the interests of Quebeckers. By so doing, we also defend the interests of Canadians from all the other provinces against the federal government's failure to act in its own area of jurisdiction.
We have understood perfectly well, and I hope those watching have as well, why the federal government does not want to change the Employment Insurance Act. It is simple: year in and year out, it can help itself to somewhere between $2.5 billion and $3 billion at the expense of the jobless, and put it into its coffers for other purposes and to the detriment of the unemployed. Some would describe this with words that cannot be said in this place, but what other terms can be applied to the act of taking someone else's money?
They still decided to change the situation and so the federal government takes resources that do not belong to it and interferes in areas not under its jurisdiction and meddles in jurisdictions where it is not expected. That is what makes the situation difficult.
That is why I again wish to speak of the wisdom shown in committee by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, and the experience he brings with him from being a minister in the Quebec national assembly. He had the support of committee members from the other parties, with the exception of the Liberals, in saying that, with this opportunity to have a new bill to create the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, why not include a clause that would completely respect the areas of jurisdiction allocated to the provinces and territories, and that is what he introduced.
I hope that the members of all parties in this House will maintain the position they adopted in committee, and that the Liberal members will understand that we do, nevertheless, want to see this department created.
The Bloc Québécois thinks it is time a department was created, but while in favour of that, we also want to see the jurisdictions of each province and territory respected, particularly since Quebec and other provinces already have had departments of public safety and emergency preparedness in place far longer than the federal government has.We would like to see their jurisdiction respected, it is only logical.
I hope the Liberal members, including the Quebec Liberals, rise in this House to vote down this motion which, once again, is intended as a direct attack on provincial jurisdictions. A good thing my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin and the Bloc Québécois, are here to defend the interests of Quebeckers.
(1305)
[English]
Mr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain other acts.
As members of the House know, the legislation is part of the government's wider response to the events of September 11, 2001 and to the threatened environment at large. On that terrible September day, terror became a real and unwelcome addition to our national consciousness. All of us grasped, in a tangible way, what until then had perhaps been only understood in the abstract: that the threat of terrorism does not just exist in far away places in some far off land, but indeed is on our very doorstep. When in subsequent days Canada was specifically mentioned by Osama bin Laden as a potential target, all Canadians knew that we had to confront terror in its most fundamental and ferocious form, that we had to face the realities of a new time.
Following September 11, the Government of Canada took stock and took action. Important new security measures were introduced, including beefing up security at our airports, creating the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and developing a comprehensive new approach to our border with the United States.
Then, on December 12, 2003, the Prime Minister introduced his new cabinet and with it a new security architecture for Canada. This new structure included the creation of a new position in the Privy Council Office: national security adviser to the Prime Minister. It also included a new committee of cabinet devoted to security, public health and emergencies, which coordinates safety and security efforts across all federal departments.
The new security architecture also included the new Canada Border Services Agency, which is responsible for customs at the Canada-U.S. border and other points of entry as well as for intelligence sharing between law enforcement partners in both countries. The new Canada Border Services Agency has also become the focal point for smart border initiatives, ensuring a border that is open to trade but closed to terror and crime.
This is so important to all border crossings, especially in my riding in the region of Niagara. Just last month the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness met with U.S. secretary of homeland security, Tom Ridge, to highlight the progress made to date on implementing the Canada-U.S. smart border action plan.
The progress is impressive and extensive. It includes the creation of two new dedicated fast lanes, one each in British Columbia and Windsor; the implementation of the Nexus U.S. air pilot program at Vancouver International Airport using biometric technology; a joint plan to engage interested parties in a discussion on commercial-free screening to enhance traffic flow at Fort Erie-Buffalo Peace Bridge; a commitment by Canada to join with the U.S. in its continued security initiative, including the deployment of Canada Border Service Agency officials to a foreign marine port by April 2005; and the signing of a letter of intent to ensure radio interoperability so that first responders and others can communicate quickly and effectively.
[Translation]
We also announced, on top of these measures, that the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness would work with the US Department of Homeland Security to decide which actions to take in case of national emergencies, like joint vulnerability assessments, binational intervention plans and protocols, and sharing more information regarding alerts and warnings.
[English]
(1310)
A key part of the smart border action plan is related to ensuring better coordination between our two countries with respect to action on cross-border crime and terrorist activity. To that end, integrated border enforcement teams, or IBETs, have been established.
Recently, at the eighth annual Canada-U.S. Border Crime Forum, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, together with the U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft, announced a number of initiatives aimed at addressing the cross-border drug trade, firearms trafficking and improving intelligence sharing.
Among the announcements made at that time was the co-location of Canadian and American IBET officials in locations in both countries as well as the release of a border drug threat assessment, which analyzes the two-way movement of drugs across the border and identifies the best practices for joint enforcement activities. New measures were announced to halt the trafficking of firearms as well as initiatives which would help the RCMP and the Bureau of Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to trace stolen guns and match crime scene bullets to a shared data base.
As part of its overall review of Canada's security requirements, the Government of Canada has also undertaken a comprehensive review of its national security policies. This review was tabled by the Prime Minister on April 27 this year under the title “Securing an Open Society”.
This new national security policy represents a major step forward in strengthening the security environment and identifies three key national security interests that Canada must advance.
First, we must protect Canada and Canadians at home and abroad. This includes safeguarding not only the physical safety of our citizens, but also of the core values Canadians have come to rely on at home and represent to the world.
Second, we must ensure that Canada does not become a base of operations for those who do harm to our allies or ourselves.
Third, it recognizes Canada's responsibility to contribute to international security. At a time when the world is interconnected as never before, we must shoulder our share, including the sending of troops if necessary and the strengthening of international institutions that contribute to global security.
This national security policy is comprehensive in scope, recognizing the changing international landscape and positioning Canada to play a key role in global affairs. This new policy also recognizes that to be successful, it must reflect the diverse perspectives of our diverse population. That is why the government has created a Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security to engage Canadians in an ongoing discussion of national security issues and how those issues relate to our pluralistic society. The roundtable will provide advice to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Justice.
It is against the background of all these initiatives, all these efforts to enhance the security of Canadians that the government also announced on December 12 of last year, the creation of a new department, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the subject of the legislation before us today. As one of the first announcements of the new government, it sent a clear message that security would be a key priority.
As hon. members have heard, this will be the focal point, the coordinating body for all our efforts to protect Canadians from any and all threats, whether such threats are to their personal or economic well-being or that of their communities. It will bring together in one place and under one minister the full range of tools necessary to provide a coordinated, integrated and effective response to the full gamut of threats from natural disasters to organized crime or acts of terrorism.
As the lynchpin of Canada's new security architecture, it plays a key role coordinating our response, ensuring efficiencies among departments and interoperability across organizations as well as facilitating joint action with other partners, whether provincial, territorial or international.
(1315)
[Translation]
This is the right legislation, which gives the right response at the right time. It allows us to review Canada's domestic security strategy while reaffirming our determination to stay true to our values.
This legislation also gives the government the tools needed to give Canadians the security they expect.
[English]
In the face of adversity, our country has a choice. We can be fearful or we can be prepared. Bill C-6 provides our unambiguous response. We will be prepared. In passing this legislation we declare in no uncertain terms that Canada is united, not simply by danger and hazard, but in purpose and resolve. In defending and protecting ourselves, we reassert the value we attach to our freedoms and our determination to defend those freedoms whenever threatened. That is why I invite all hon. members to support this very important legislation.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure on behalf of the people of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke that I rise today to participate in the debate regarding Bill C-6, the public safety and emergency preparedness act.
The decision to create public safety and emergency preparedness Canada is certainly something that has been called for on this side of the House. The object of trying to bring some policy cohesiveness among a variety of agencies is something we appreciate, particularly when it comes to disaster relief. In many ways what is being attempted in the legislation mirrors efforts in providing disaster flood relief to the residents of my riding who live along the Ottawa River.
First, there needs to be coordination among various government agencies. To illustrate the complexity of finding solutions to problems when a variety of government agencies at all levels are involved, I will give an example of a local disaster scenario and how the various participants are involved in the process.
A recent meeting of stakeholders was held regarding water levels on the Ottawa River. Participants agreed that the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board, the ORRPB, and its partners, need to do a better job of communicating to the public about their respective roles.
The supervision of water levels on the Ottawa River is managed by the ORRPB. Membership consists of three federal representatives, one each from the Department of Public Works and Government Services, Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans, a representative from the Ministry of Natural Resources, MNR, for Ontario, someone from the Ministry of the Environment for Quebec, a representative from Ontario Power Generation and a representative from Hydro-Quebec. The costs of operating this board are shared 50% by the federal government, with Ontario and Quebec paying equal shares of 25% each.
In addition to members of ORRPB and local MNR representation, the County of Renfrew as well as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs advisor for Renfrew County and provincial MPP John Yakabuski were invited to participate in the stakeholders meeting.
Bill C-6 now puts the disaster financial assistance arrangements, DFAA, program into the ministry of public safety. One of the concerns which I have brought before the House on a previous occasion is that the DFAA program is administered in Ontario. My office has received numerous complaints, particularly in the last several years, over the management of the water levels along the Ottawa River with respect to flooding.
Back in July, I sent a request through the federal representatives on the ORRPB to hold a public meeting in Renfrew county to address some of the concerns of residents and businesses along the Ottawa River. It was my hope that some of the problems with the way emergency preparedness had been administered in the past would have been corrected with this legislation. This includes the DFAA Program.
Since its inception, DFAA claims for the province of Ontario total $124 million. That was for the ice storm where damage was in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The problem is that provincial eligible expenses are calculated on a per capita population basis. That means that on the first dollar per capita for the population of Ontario, which is 12,238,200 people, the federal share is nil. On the next $2 per capita up to 24, 476,400, the federal share is 50%. On the next $2 per capita, the federal share is 75% with the remaining provincial eligible expenses then kicking in at 90%.
Based on this formula, Ontario does not qualify for DFAA assistance at the maximum rate until all eligible expenses exceed almost $62 million. By way of contrast, the province of Prince Edward Island, based on the per capita formula, qualifies for federal assistance at the maximum rate after eligible expenses exceed only $685,000. There is a big difference between $62 million and $685,000.
Access to federal government programs should be based on need, not on geography.
In 2002, based on this unfair funding formula, flood victims who happened to live on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River were eligible for federal flood damage. Their neighbours in Ontario, who experienced the same flood conditions on the same river, received nothing. The Greenway Association at LaPasse at the time provided me with a flood damage report of $250,000, just for Lacroix Bay on the Ottawa River.
(1320)
There is no doubt that if the DFAA were administered in a uniform fashion, the residents and municipalities along both sides of the Ottawa River would have qualified for some federal assistance. Once again this year, the same situation was experienced by residents in the Township of Whitewater Region, with extensive flooding of their properties along the Ottawa River.
The legislation we have before us today recognizes the role the federal government has to play when it comes to disaster relief. Rather than perpetuate this inequity, we on this side of the House are asking for fairness in the administration of federal government programs. That is how we build a nation: with fairness in government programs. I join the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in calling for a new cost sharing formula when it comes to disaster recovery.
The second point I wish to raise is the sorry history of the former Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness. In particular, I draw to the attention of the House the disgraceful actions of OCIPEP in closing down the Emergency Preparedness College in Arnprior. With this new legislation and a new minister in charge, the opportunity now exists to reverse the mistakes made by the minister's predecessor and utilize the Arnprior campus of the Emergency Preparedness College.
It is a well known fact that the lack of emergency preparedness for such disasters as the SARS outbreak and the power grid failure were in part caused by the chaos of shuffling public servants to Ottawa with no benefit to the safety and security of Canadians.
It is also recognized that the reputation of the Emergency Preparedness College in Arnprior was both a national and an international one. A brand new four-lane highway from Ottawa to Arnprior has opened. An announcement, along with this legislation, that the Emergency Preparedness College is moving from its temporary location in Ottawa back to Arnprior would go a long way to restoring credibility to the administration of emergency preparedness in Canada.
I understand that only one other jurisdiction in the world, one in the Baltic states, has located the command centre of its emergency preparedness headquarters outside an area that would be a target for a strike, the nation's capital. That is poor planning and precisely the kind of decision that reduces the confidence of our allies in our ability to respond to the war on terrorism.
Let us be clear. The public policy behind this bureaucratic reorganization is a war on terrorism. If at the end of the day the same inefficiencies, lack of coordination and poor communication that resulted in the creation of this new ministry are only going to be buried in a larger bureaucracy where it can be easier to hide poor decisions, this process is a wasted exercise and a poor use of the taxpayers' dollars.
It was the inability of the previous minister of emergency preparedness, who had the statutory authority but lacked a grasp of the importance of the portfolio, that led to the travel advisory being issued against Toronto during the SARS episode. Information was not communicated to the World Health Organization in a timely fashion. The leadership role that the Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was intended to assume never materialized. The cost to the tourism industry in Toronto and the rest of the province of Ontario was in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The great blackout in the summer of 2003 is the next example of a lack of coordination that led to mass confusion and conflicting messages being sent out by the federal government. It is important to note that in the threat analysis prepared by OCIPEP, it totally discounted the likelihood of a power grid failure. This explains why the Government of Canada was so unprepared for that emergency and the subsequent misinformation that was distributed to the public.
(1325)
While these mistakes in and of themselves did not contribute directly to a loss of life that we know of, the next time could have very tragic circumstances.
I look forward to seeing if the Government of Canada meets the expectations of Canadians with this bureaucratic reorganization or if taxpayers are once again saddled with the costs and expenses of a departmental shuffle with the same problems that existed, only under a different name.
[Translation]
Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this House to speak on this bill.
Just to situate things, we in the Bloc Québécois support this bill and shall be voting in favour of it. Nevertheless, with your permission, I have one thing to say. Today we are discussing the amendment proposed by the Bloc and adopted by all the opposition parties, a majority in the committee, as the House now realizes. I shall read clause 6(1) as it was originally drafted:
|
In exercising his or her powers and in performing his or her duties and functions, the Minister may: |
|
(a) initiate, recommend, coordinate, implement or promote policies, programs or projects relating to public safety and emergency preparedness;— |
The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who is on the committee, proposed an amendment to the beginning of clause 6(1), to read: “In exercising his or her powers and in performing his or her duties and functions and with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories, the Minister may—”
This amendment is essential to the adoption of this bill. We do not see any reason for our Liberal party colleagues opposite to object. It is a very important amendment because it directly affects provincial jurisdictions in certain sectors. If the proposed amendment were not adopted, it would enable the government to directly affect the jurisdictions of emergency preparedness, public health, the establishment, maintenance and administration of prisons and reformatories in the provinces, disasters that are usually local in nature, and the administration of justice.
In Quebec we have a public security program that has existed for many years and which is ably coordinated by the Department of Public Security. Emergency preparedness also exists and is also ably coordinated by the same department.
The government would like to add its presence. Federal help is appreciated, but must not be imposed. Quebec and the provinces must remain the primary contractors and must have the last word. When we talk about natural disasters, from floods to ice storms, we think it is important for this bill to be passed, if it respects provincial jurisdictions.
Quebec has set up its own organization to see to the public security of Quebeckers. It is working fine and the federal government might compromise its efficiency and effectiveness by duplicating it.
Those who can best manage public safety are local elected representatives, who are familiar with citizens' programs. The federal government conceives its intervention plans away from the site and from reality. If this amendment is not passed, the federal government could try to impose them, when they are less adapted and could well thwart efficient provincial plans
This is why we agree with the legislation. We have always said that it was an important bill, which should have been passed long ago. However, the federal government has been once more dragging its feet.
I repeat that the federal government invests 44% of its budget in provincial fields of jurisdiction.
(1330)
Enough is enough. If the federal government wants to have a law on public safety, we agree. However, this bill must not infringe upon provincial fields of jurisdiction, and the federal government must work jointly with the provinces to create programs and, above all, cooperate with the provinces to implement them.
This is why we are asking all the members of the House to vote in favour of the amendment of the Bloc—reject the Liberal Party's motion—and to ensure that we go back to the bill as amended, where section 6(1) reads:
|
In exercising his or her powers and in performing his or her duties and functions and with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories, the Minister may— |
We strongly believe in this bill and we will support it if this amendment is a part of it.
(1335)
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add a few comments on Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain acts.
I understand the House has had the opportunity to hear representations from the parliamentary secretary and others to ensure that the substantive matters of the bill have been brought to the fore. Based on the debate that has been held thus far in the House it appears there is substantial concurrence, notwithstanding the issue of a report stage motion dealt with at committee.
I was in the same position when a committee on which I was a member made an amendment to a bill but during report stage a motion was tabled that reversed the work of the committee. As an ordinary member of Parliament I find that a little troubling but I also understand that if a deal is not struck with regard to the disposition of the motion the full House will have the opportunity to vote. I am sure the House will deal with it appropriately.
I appreciate the situation in which hon. members who are concerned about this find themselves. I might remind members that under the rules of this place within 90 sitting days of the commencement of a new Parliament there has to be a debate involving the procedures of the House. I think this might be an interesting example that can be dealt with.
I know members wanted to seek a precedent. In fact, on Bill C-13 in the last Parliament, after about two or three years of study and consideration of perhaps 100-plus amendments proposed by members, two amendments were passed by the health committee. When the bill finally was reported back to the House there were two report stage motions to reverse the two amendments that the committee had passed. After all of that work, the committee's work was basically reduced and the bill that came to it originally was the bill that ultimately went forward.
From the standpoint of the work of committees, I tend to think committees do excellent work. I appreciate that the issues that have been raised here in debate are not so broad that there is no concern but this is an important bill that we need to get on with.
The summary of the bill basically states, to establish the department. I have often thought that since September 11 Canada has not had the need to establish this type of departmental responsibility that would require parliamentary approval. However we now have a minister who is responsible and we have established relationships with the United States.
Last evening I was very encouraged to see reasonable developments with regard to border crossings, that Canadian citizens will not be unduly delayed, at least at the one border, which I believe is the Sarnia crossing, and that this will be implemented across Canada. We do continue to play our role.
As well, in the last month we have had the opportunity to welcome some of the senior officials from the United States to have discussions with Canadian parliamentarians to discuss our important relationship with the United States as it relates to the safety and security of Canada and the United States and North America as a whole.
The bill would provide a framework in which the department will operate. It would give the department the full authority to take action on behalf of the people of Canada.
I have not heard it yet but I am not sure if there are any lingering concerns about whether or not establishing some sort of a parallel framework and the collaboration that has been going on over the last number of years has in any way compromised the sovereignty of Canada. I know that from time to time we have issues that come before this place. One will be hurtling toward us, no pun intended, being the ballistic missile defence.
(1340)
This raises the question about the elements of providing emergency preparedness and the safety and security responsibilities of this new department.
Emergency preparedness is something that we can learn from the examples around the world. We know many of the risks that have resulted in some tragic situations around the world. We are doing substantive work on putting into place some of those elements to ensure that emergency preparedness is something that we can be proud that we are doing the very best possible.
I do not think there is anybody who could give a 100% guarantee that we can be protected from all risk, at all times, at all places. It is just not possible. However we must take reasonable steps. I think the minister has shown that all reasonable steps have been taken with regard to that element of the file, the emergency preparedness.
The safety and security part of it becomes a little more difficult to deal with, particularly from the standpoint of the debate that will go on with regard to what constitutes defensive measures as opposed to what could be construed or maybe manipulated to be offensive measures.
Certainly there are examples where people feel that one of the best defences is a good offence. It will be interesting as we go through the process of developing safety and security measures on behalf of Canadians. It will also be extremely important for us to communicate in plain terms to the Canadian public the important work that is being done to ensure our safety and security, certainly with regard to emergency preparedness.
I think this is the first time I have come across a bill in which a new ministry has been created. The bill also has a number of transitional provisions because, like anything, responsibilities have to be taken into account. There are changes as well to the Access to Information Act, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Act, the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal Act, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Citizenship Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and it goes on. The point being that this is not a small change in the discharging of the responsibilities of the Government of Canada.
This House would also be seized with other matters. For instance, I mentioned the change in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which I believe is at committee, that deals with marijuana grow houses and the penalties related to the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Some questions have already been asked as to the impact on trade and the border activity, et cetera. It goes to the very heart of the issue here, which is that we have to ensure that emergency preparedness is in very good shape and that the safety and security issues are also in place, but not to the extent that we impair the trade relationship that we have. Over 75% of our export trade is with the United States. Traffic must keep moving but safety and security is also a priority and balancing those priorities will be the biggest challenge for the Government of Canada.
(1345)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one of the good news for our party as well as for this Parliament that came out of the June 28 election was the victory of our colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. He is a distinguished colleague who attracted a lot of positive attention during his career in Quebec's National Assembly, where he held various portfolios and brilliantly discharged his duties.
Our colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin can now get an inside view of the federal monster. Because of the dysfunction of the federal system we live in, many of our fellow citizens support the creation of a separate country called Quebec.
Members will agree with me that June 28 also brought about a very significant change in what I would call the geopolitical face of the House of Commons. The Liberal government, the Liberal Party of Canada, took quite a beating across the country, and particularly in Quebec, where 54 ridings out of 75 are now represented by members of my political party, that is, the Bloc Québécois.
Unfortunately, it would appear that this change of massive proportions to the Canadian political map did not register correctly with our friends across the way. On June 28, the government was punished by the voters for two reasons among others.
First, of course, is what certain commentators in English Canada called the dictatorship of the Prime Minister, in reference to the inordinate control exercised by the Prime Minister over the federal administration or the government's political community, to the point that the House had become nothing more than an instrument rubber stamping the Prime Minister's decisions. Second, the voters rejected rather dramatically this desire to centralize and standardize that is at the core of the philosophy of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Let us start with the first component, namely centralization in the hands of the Prime Minister. A great many Liberal members spoke out and met with journalists, complaining about Prime Minister Chrétien's excessive control. They said, “With the new Prime Minister—the one we have now—all this will change. We, as parliamentarians, want our responsibilities as parliamentarians and lawmakers respected by both the House of Commons and our own government, naturally”.
Where are these members now? They are not speaking out against their government's attempt to reverse a decision freely made by a committee of this House. This means that they are in favour of having their prerogatives and rights as parliamentarians restricted and, worse yet, denied and negated by their own government.
That is what we are talking about here. A parliamentary committee decides to amend a bill. Unhappy with the decision freely made by parliamentarians and law makers in committee, what does the government do? It tries to have the decision overturned by the House. What a disgrace for a government and a Prime Minister who, day after day, meeting after meeting, used to say, “We will fix the democratic deficit in this House. At long last, we will let members who deserve it have their say again”.
And what do we see? We see that members across the way are quite happy to behave like eunuchs, to let themselves be led by the government as a herd of sheep under their Prime Minister. If they valued their prerogatives as parliamentarians and law makers, they would be the first ones to rise in this House and say, “We may not agree with what happened in committee, but Parliament should work in such a way that committee decisions are respected”.
(1350)
But no, they keep quiet. They stick to this vision that everything is decided by the PMO. Shame on them! But what better example of the Liberals' double speak, who say on the one hand “We want parliamentarians to be shown respect”, but who, on the other hand, agree to this petty attempt to hijack parliamentary democracy. It is so sad it makes one feel like crying.
It is rather ironic that the division of powers and the Canadian Constitution are being defended by the same people who want out of it. My colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin was an activist in the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale, the RIN, created in 1960 by André d'Allemagne and later headed by Marcel Chaput and then by Pierre Bourgault. This very same sovereignist-independentist movement now has to defend the division of powers under a Constitution from which it wants out, because federalists, as embodied by the Liberal Party of Canada, are ignoring their own Constitution, their own founding document, which is rather incredible.
It should not surprise us, considering that 44% of federal spending is in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Despite that, when they have an opportunity to prove that they are true federalists and not centralizers, they might well say: “We agree that provincial jurisdiction should be respected and in the case of each legislative measure that comes before us”. Maybe the House should decide to put in every bill a clause saying that provincial and federal jurisdictions have to be fully respected, in order to quell the Liberal members' appetite for centralization and uniformity.
Therefore I would invite two groups in this House to do the following. To the opposition parties I say: “Let us stick together and make sure that we have a truly democratic Parliament. Let us make sure that our rights and privileges, as members of Parliament and legislators, are respected”.
I invite my Liberal colleagues, who are listening to me intently, to rise and say to their leader, to the Cabinet members and to the Prime Minister: “We are Liberals but, above all, we are members of Parliament and legislators. We will never allow our privileges as members of Parliament and legislators to be denied, shoved aside or exchanged for a handout, such as an appointment to some position by the Prime Minister of Canada.
I will end with the following story, because I notice the presence of the former government House leader, who is a fan of Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill told the following story: “When I was a child, a circus came to my neighbourhood. In that circus, there was someone called “the boneless wonder”. My parents had refused to allow me to see that person. They thought it would be inappropriate considering my young age.” Incredibly, we have “boneless wonders” in this House: they are the Liberal members who refuse to stand up.
(1355)
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this important piece of legislation, Bill C-6 on the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Underlying the debate on this bill are issues of democracy, respect for jurisdictions and government effectiveness.
Democracy is an important element, but unfortunately this minority government has not quite realized it. This is a minority government that did not get 64% of the vote, since it went to electing 54 Bloc Québécois members.
The message from voters to this government then is to respect the opposition parties, the diversity of opinion and provincial jurisdictions. They do not want an imperialist, centralist, ineffective, heavy-spending government. They want a responsible government that knows how to be humble, modest and capable and to do its homework. Unfortunately, the message has not gotten through and this is not the case.
There is no respect for fundamental democracy. I even find this government—in addition to all the nice adjectives I use to describe it, such as imperialist, controlling and arrogant—to be a bit foolish. It is foolish in how it keeps coming back this assembly, the House of Commons.
I agree with my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles—who respects the other hon. members when they are speaking, unlike some people in this House—when he says that when a committee addresses an issue, there has to be very good reasons to change its direction. In a way, the committee represents this House on a small scale. It is where bills are thoroughly considered. It is where, with help from witnesses, we think hard, often clause by clause, about the bill.
It takes a certain arrogance to go back on consensus or committee reports on such fundamental issues as respecting jurisdictions. This should go without saying.
Unfortunately, in its generalized intrusive practices, this government finds a way of being bad in its jurisdictions and being very bad when it comes to overlapping. It specializes in mediocrity.
Of course, this is done at the expense of the taxpayers, of the citizens who, beyond Bill C-6, beyond the amendments being counter-amended by this very strange minority government, which is too big for its britches, only want greater safety, better environmental protection and more respect for public funds.
In the rather artificial environment of Parliament Hill, people tend to forget about these things. As a new member, I can tell the House that a person can easily forget where he comes from. I think many government members have forgotten where they come from and who has sent them here.
We came up with a very simple amendment. We support the bill in principle, although we now realize that it can lead to abuses of power by the minister concerned. We are worried about that, but we hope that it will not happen. We hope that the bill will be passed with the amendment agreed upon in committee, and without today's amendment to counter the amendment, which is despicable. We hope that the bill will be passed in a spirit of cooperation and respect for provincial jurisdictions.
Last summer, the government was bragging about practising asymmetrical federalism, but now it has gone back to its hypocritical behaviour, as evidenced by the way it deals with all the legislation and the various measures. Its hypocrisy is reflected in this about face. I think the government will soon hit a wall. It will even--
(1400)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. When debate resumes, he will have five minutes remaining.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[Translation]
Family Physicians of Canada Week
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I inform my colleagues in this House that the week of November 21 to 27 is Family Physicians of Canada Week.
All members of the College of Family Physicians of Canada deserve to be congratulated on this very special occasion, namely the 50th anniversary of their organization.
Every day in Canada, family physicians diagnose people, treat illnesses and injuries, promote health, prevent disease, coordinate care and support their patients.
They provide not only primary health care, but also a large part of the secondary and tertiary care in many communities, whether it is in their office, at the hospital, at their patients' home, in seniors' residences and in other community facilities.
Family physicians also teach resident physicians and students in Canada's 16 medicine schools, and they conduct research that provides an important contribution to the practice of family medicine in our country and in the world.
I invite hon. members to join me in thanking our family physicians and in supporting the Family Physicians of Canada Week.
* * *
[English]
Hockey
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are now into what would have been the NHL season. I would like to report that in Elgin--Middlesex--London fans are handling the withdrawal well. Minor hockey continues to flourish with a refreshing dose of more fun in the game. Perhaps without the million dollar role models' tantrums to mimic or the exorbitant prices of NHL game tickets to distract our young players, the game is returning to its roots.
Two very special teams are helping us all forget the NHL. The Aylmer Blues of the Senior A loop continue to lead the league. This second year team came very close to the Allan Cup last year. And who could talk about hockey in Elgin--Middlesex--London without bragging about the number one ranked London Knights who are still undefeated 21 games into the season? These are young men playing not for millions but for the love of the game.
Who needs the NHL? I have better hockey.
* * *
Poland
Hon. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate an important event for Polish Canadians in my riding of Parkdale--High Park and throughout Canada. On November 7, I participated in the flag raising ceremony at Toronto City Hall to mark the anniversary of Poland's Independence Day.
Poland's Independence Day is celebrated annually on November 11. It was first established in 1918 following the end of the great war, when Poland was reconstituted as an independent country. This was a proud achievement, especially for a country with the world's second oldest constitution. Together with the Canadian Polish Congress, World War II veterans, and scouting organizations, Polish Canadians in Toronto celebrated their long struggle for freedom that has resulted in Poland being firmly established in the family of democratic countries.
Today, Poland is truly independent again. Poland is an active member of NATO and the European Union, and an example to other countries embarking upon building parliamentary democracies in the former Soviet bloc. We salute the Polish people for their continued efforts to strengthen democracy in their home country and in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
Department of National Defence
Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, from 1952 to 2000, the Department of National Defence fired shells in Lake Saint-Pierre, which is a UNESCO world biosphere reserve.
It is estimated that over 300,000 shells are currently at the bottom of the lake, including 8,000 unexploded ones. These shells are an environmental threat and they also pose a problem to users. They are a handicap for commercial fishermen, shoreline residents and numerous ecotourism projects.
My constituents are concerned about their safety. Moreover, these shells are an impediment to their will to take charge of their region's development.
The government must assume its responsibilities by correcting the situation, particularly since the technology to remove these shells is available.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Diabetes
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, November is Diabetes Awareness Month. Approximately two million people in Canada are afflicted with diabetes. The majority of these people have type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes, where one's body does not know how to use the insulin it produces, is preventable. Despite this fact, it is one of the fastest growing diseases here at home and around the world. This is unacceptable.
This year the Government of Canada will be spending $30 million on a Canadian diabetes strategy. People need to be educated and aware of the things they can do today, right now, to prevent type 2 diabetes. Preventable measures include regular exercise and incorporating healthier food choices into one's diet. While these choices seem simple, thousands of people do not make them.
This month, I would like to encourage and challenge all Canadians, myself included, to integrate these measures into our daily lives. The small changes we make today can have dramatic and positive impacts on the future.
* * *
Diabetes
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize World Diabetes Day and Juvenile Diabetes Awareness Day on Parliament Hill.
Over two million Canadians have diabetes.
Type 1 diabetes occurs when the pancreas no longer produces insulin, which the body needs to survive. Many Canadian children suffer from juvenile diabetes of this type, and I salute the parents and the wonderful and patient children who came to Ottawa today to talk to parliamentarians about this disease.
Type 2 diabetes occurs when the pancreas does not produce enough insulin, or when the body does not effectively use the insulin that is produced.
Gestational diabetes is a temporary condition that affects approximately 3.5% of all pregnancies.
We are extremely fortunate in Canada to have researchers and scientists at the University of Alberta who have developed something called the Edmonton protocol, a procedure for transplanting healthy islet cells into people with type 1 diabetes. The research and treatment conducted by this group offers a long term treatment option for diabetics.
I would like to pay tribute to all members of the Edmonton protocol team for their hard work and their continued research into this disease.
* * *
Child Care
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past weekend in Winnipeg I attended the Canadian Council on Social Development's conference, Child Care for a Change.
Close to 650 delegates from all corners of the sector representing researchers, policy makers, educators and parents had the opportunity to hear from some of Canada's top experts in the field as well as a number of well-known international experts.
Minister Ken Dryden opened the conference and spoke of the strong commitment of the government to work with the provinces and territories, stakeholders and communities, aboriginal governments and aboriginal communities to realize the vision of a national early learning and child care system. The minister received a standing ovation from the delegates, evidence of the strong support for this important government priority.
The Liberal commitment of over $5 billion over five years is a significant first step toward the national system.
I call on all parties today to work together for the benefit of our children in making this commitment a reality.
The Speaker: The hon. member was not referring to the Minister of Social Development when she was referring to someone on a first name basis like that.
* * *
[Translation]
Integration of the Americas
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his speech to this House, Mexican President Vicente Fox made several references to the importance of shared development and to transforming North America into a region of cooperation and integration.
He also spoke of the idea he introduced during his September 2000 visit to Ottawa: a social development fund of the Americas, particularly North America, to help those losing out because of free trade.
The Bloc Québécois shares President Fox's conviction that it is important for there to be a series of measures in place, as North America and eventually the entire continent becomes integrated, in order to support regions and populations affected by the socio-economic changes caused by NAFTA and the coming free trade area of the Americas.
In order to reap the benefits of access to a wider market, there must be infrastructure in education, health and transportation. Unfortunately, the Liberals do not yet get it, that such a fund would enable all of the regions to become full-fledged partners as well as representing markets of interest to our exporters.
* * *
[English]
Juvenile Diabetes
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I had the honour of meeting one of my young constituents who came to Parliament Hill on a very special mission.
Brodie has juvenile diabetes. Every day he must have injections of insulin to survive. Brodie is part of the Kids for a Cure delegation, a group of youngsters from all across Canada who have travelled to Ottawa to deliver the message that with more research and more funds, a cure is possible.
Researchers from Canada are part of conducting very promising research that could lead to cure therapies, but this research can only succeed with continued funding.
I come from a family where this disease exists and I hope that my grandchildren never get it. I certainly hope for a cure for Brodie. Let us make that our mission. Let us accept the mission and let us contribute generously to juvenile diabetes research.
* * *
(1410)
Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Mingli Lin, a former prisoner of conscience, continues to languish in China even though this House voted unanimously to permit him to rejoin his family here in Canada.
In October 2002 the Commons voted to permit the entry to this country of 13 Falun Gong practitioners, including Mingli Lin. In violation of the will of the House, a Canadian consular official in Shanghai refused to issue a visa to Mingli Lin. On April 21 of this year, I hand delivered a letter to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration advising her that her officials were acting in contempt of Parliament and requesting that she intervene personally.
The minister wrote back that she would not issue a ministerial permit, but that if Mingli Lin were to travel to a third country, which of course he cannot do, he could apply for entry to Canada as a refugee.
The minister should hang her head in shame for actively obstructing the unanimous will of the House and for preventing a model citizen from being reunited with his family on our shores.
* * *
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, November 17, is World COPD Day.
COPD is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and affects 714,000 Canadians, mostly smokers or former smokers, and is rapidly rising among women. Tragically, it is targeted to be the third leading cause of death worldwide by 2020.
People with COPD often struggle for every breath and have difficulty performing simple tasks such as walking up stairs. The burden on the health care system is enormous. It is now the fifth major cause of hospitalization in Canada.
There is no known cure for this chronic disease, but it is treatable and preventable. Lung association staff and volunteers work very hard in the area of prevention to educate young Canadians about the dangers of smoking. If young people never start smoking, chances are they will never contract this disease.
I encourage us as parliamentarians to support the work of the lung association. Its slogan says it all: “When you can't breathe, nothing else matters.”
* * *
Sudan
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Human Rights Watch has released its fourth report on the genocide in Sudan. Ethnic cleansing by government supported troops is being consolidated, and 1.7 million people have been forced off their land into displacement camps where they decide daily whether to stay and starve or to return home and be killed.
On November 18 the UN Security Council is meeting in Nairobi to consider a new stronger resolution. If this fails, the world will face another Rwanda.
China's opposition has been the main stumbling block in the Security Council. China's resource interests in Sudan are large, and we know the Liberals never stand in the way of the Chinese government when it wants to acquire foreign resources.
There is no sitting on the fence and no middle ground in Sudan. The facts are that the Janjaweed militia are supported by the Sudanese government, that the Security Council has failed to take a strong stand against the genocide, and that the government has not applied pressure to help stop the killing.
It is time for the Prime Minister to show the world that Canadians value the lives of the people of Darfur. It is time for Canada to show leadership.
* * *
Diabetes
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, diabetes is a disease that afflicts far too many Canadians. Two million Canadians currently struggle with this disease. The numbers are expected to increase as our population ages and as obesity rates rise. In some first nations communities the incidence of diabetes is three to four times the national average.
The government keeps saying that it is a priority, but where are the results?
The Conservative Party recognizes the need for a range of prevention and treatment strategies to combat this disease.
Canadian scientists are engaged in leading edge research, testing and treatment programs, including the exciting Edmonton protocol. We must do more to prevent diabetes by encouraging physical activity and healthy eating.
November 14 is World Diabetes Day, marking the birthday of Dr. Frederick Banting, one of Canada's greatest scientists.
On behalf of Canada's official opposition, I offer our best wishes to the Canadian Diabetes Association and to all those who strive to prevent, treat and find cures for this disease. We thank them for their good work and wish them success in the years ahead.
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
International Solidarity
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to have this opportunity to draw attention to the eighth annual Journées québécoises de la solidarité internationale, from November 11 through 21 this year. This year's slogan is a highly original one and very much indicative of the desire of Quebeckers to combat the militaristic stance shared by most of the western world, “Choisissons notre monde: sans armes, citoyens”. Rather than a call to arms, this is a call to lay down weapons and shape our own world.
This is first and foremost intended as a reminder to parliamentarians and decision makers that the best weapon against terrorism and threats to security is improving the standard of living of third world countries and their populations. The 53 member organizations of the Association québécoise de coopération internationale are focussing their efforts on promoting a world without violence and without weapons.
As Canada's decision on the missile defence shield is forthcoming, the Bloc Québécois is taking advantage of this opportunity offered by the Journées québécoises de la solidarité to remind the Canadian government that the people of Quebec are strongly opposed—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Oshawa.
* * *
[English]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as members know by now, Fairuz Yamulky, a Canadian citizen, was beaten, threatened with beheading, and held captive in Iraq earlier this year.
I, along with many Canadians, watched Ms. Yamulky recount a story of diplomatic impotence on television this past Sunday. We learned that Canadian officials in Amman, Jordan gave Ms. Yamulky scant attention or support during her terrifying ordeal. Embassy officials had the temerity to order Ms. Yamulky to pay for an emergency passport and her subsequent travel arrangements. The message we are sending is, “Thanks for having escaped your captors, now here is your bill”.
I am relieved that Ms. Yamulky is safely out of harm's way, but I would encourage the Minister of Foreign Affairs to launch an immediate review of this incident and report back to the House in the coming days.
* * *
Middle East
Mr. Russ Powers (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to share the optimism expressed in the wake of Yasser Arafat's demise that a moderate Palestinian leadership will negotiate a reasonable accommodation of this century old conflict. However, statements in Arabic by Palestinian officials may reveal an agenda of working toward the state of Israel's disappearance.
Last week the Palestinian ambassador to Iran on Al-Alam TV spoke to an Arafat legacy, and the English translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute stated, “And now he is gone...what will surely be the end of this Zionist entity? I will say to you that this entity will disappear one of these days...it's a matter of time”.
The Palestinian ambassador then referred to international restraints and further stated, “Our phased plan is to establish an independent sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. As for deciding the conflict, that's a matter for history”.
Our eyes must continue to focus on the Middle East.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Taxation
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, you will recall that during the election the Prime Minister said he could not afford tax cuts. We now know the truth. He was hiding massive surpluses, overtaxing Canadians to support his spending habits.
I ask the Prime Minister, now that the surplus is over four times what he claimed it would be, will he commit to giving Canadians the tax relief they deserve?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition seems to have some difficulty with the fact that this country is in good financial shape.
I was in Europe when the finance minister announced the level of the surplus last year. The Leader of the Opposition was clearly unhappy with it. Let me say that Canada was the admiration of Europe as country after country wondered how in fact we had reduced our debt, increased our surpluses and, as a result of that, how we have been able to cut taxes on the one hand and increase jobs on the other.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what we would like to see and what Canadian families would like to see is that instead of all that tax money going into the pockets of Liberals' friends maybe it would go to the families of this country.
The Prime Minister has $2.5 billion in unpaid TPC loans to corporations, including to his own family corporation, and $1 million just spent on a Challenger photo op tour. With the $9 billion surplus, why can he not give Canadians some of their own tax money back?
(1420)
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that any of the TPC programs were made under the strictest conditions of the ethics codes of the time and under the ethics codes that exist today. To malign a member of this House in that way is wrong.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what is wrong is giving money that is not paid back to corporations when it should be given back to the workers who paid that money.
[Translation]
The problem is that the Liberals think they know more about spending the money than the people who have earned it.
With a surplus of $9 billion, does the Prime Minister intend to reduce income taxes on Canadian families, yes or no?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has said many times that he is certainly prepared to consider lower taxes, but that our priorities come first; they are: health; equalization payments for the less wealthy provinces; child care; spending for our first nations, truly spending on defence; and spending where the priorities of Canadians lie, and we shall do that. We said so during the election campaign and we will keep our promises.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister is saying is that Canadians can have tax relief after he has spent all the money. We want a balanced approach.
Today the Prime Minister said that tax relief is at the bottom of his list, but members of the finance committee are holding prebudget hearings right now because they were told that the opinions of Canadians counted. Why is the Prime Minister telling Canadians that their opinions do not count, especially if they want lower taxes?
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has rightly said, there is a number of funding commitments that have been made by the government, funding commitments that we made during the platform, and those funding commitments will be honoured.
After that is done, we have to keep a competitive tax environment. The appreciation of the Canadian dollar vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar creates an uncompetitive environment. The productivity numbers have to be kept up if we intend to keep our prosperity. In the greater scheme of things, we will in fact go over the issues that are raised by the committee, and if the committee behaves in a responsible, fair way, then we will in fact respond.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is basically saying to Canadians, “If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you”.
This money belongs to Canadians. They have a right to have a say in how this money is allocated. My question is for the Prime Minister. Why is he not allowing Canadians who want lower taxes to be part of this debate? Why do they not have a say in this?
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact we have had in the last year or two the most massive tax cut in Canadian history, $100 billion. The result thus far is very encouraging, because in fact on corporate revenues the tax increase has been 23%. On personal tax cuts, we have actually generated greater revenues of 2%, so of course tax cuts have to be in the mix of debate. I cannot imagine why it is not.
* * *
[Translation]
Employment Insurance
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, instead of using the surplus to improve the employment insurance system to benefit the unemployed who have been waiting for far too long, the government is considering reducing contributions.
Does the Prime Minister realize that his government is completely missing the point and that the priority should be to improve the system, since currently 60% of workers are not eligible for employment insurance when they need it?
[English]
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think he has his facts wrong. The number of Canadians who can actually qualify for employment insurance exceeds 88%.
The Leader of the Opposition will also recall that as we prepare for a point where we will make adjustments to premium rates, we have dropped those over the course of the last 10 years at the same time as the unemployment rate has been dropping. I am sure he would want to join the rest of us in celebrating the fact that Canada's unemployment rate is among the lowest in the western world.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it was because of such harebrained comments that the Liberals were swept out of Quebec. During the election campaign the Prime Minister made promises. More has to be done for seasonal workers, he said in Rimouski. The 910-hour eligibility requirement penalizes young people and needs to be changed, he said during the leaders debate.
Now that he has the means, could he, for once, go ahead and keep his promises?
(1425)
[English]
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the member opposite, we are going to try to base our policy on good, sound judgment and analysis rather than empty and cheap rhetoric.
What the member will recognize is that of course we have a concern about people who leave their place of birth, but it will not be because of what he suggests. It will be because we are in fact creating work employment. That is the best guarantee of stability and sustainability in every community. He will recognize that 38,000--
[Translation]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister should go and say that to the unemployed who are not receiving benefits. They will tell him whether it is rhetoric or not.
The government should take advantage of the so-called unexpected surplus to resolve the eligibility problems that some Quebeckers have when it comes to employment insurance.
When we see that 84% of young people under 25 and 67% of women who have lost their jobs do not receive benefits from the employment insurance system, should the government not use its enormous surplus to help young people and more women qualify for employment insurance benefits?
[English]
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every economist in the country, all analysts, all labour market analysts, point to the fact that we have created close to 300 new jobs--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Joseph Volpe: --in the course of this last year, 38,000 in Quebec. We have a participation rate that is the highest in the OECD countries: 67.5%. He is decrying the fact that the economy is responding positively and giving hope and ambition to all those who aspire for a good quality of life, as they enjoy today. The member is out to lunch.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ): Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister does not know what it is like to lose his job. In many outlying regions, seasonal workers and their families go through what is called the gap. In other words, in some cases, they have periods of up to two months where they do not receive any employment insurance benefits.
When the government realizes that its surplus is much greater than it had anticipated, is that not the right moment to step in to resolve these problems and help these families?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are already doing so. Last spring we redistributed the economic regions so that many more individuals who end up in a period of unemployment can qualify for benefits.
Furthermore, we have already made changes to make it possible for people who live in economic regions where the unemployment rate is greater than 10% to receive benefits for an additional five weeks.
Also, last spring we set up other pilot projects for—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.
* * *
[English]
Canada-U.S. Relations
Mr. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. George Bush's choice for secretary of state is not good news for foreign policy of a moderate kind. Four years ago she was Bush's ambassador for missile defence, going to Russia to ask them to tear up an arms control treaty. In fact, that treaty was torn up.
Does the Prime Minister believe that this represents the Canadian approach, the multilateral approach that is so important, with Condoleezza Rice and George Bush tearing up multilateral arms control treaties?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be looking forward to meeting with President Bush in Chile to discuss Canada's vision of the new multilateralism.
We saw it the other day in Haiti, where in fact Canada played a very important role in bringing about the beginnings of reconciliation. We will see it in the discussions about the Middle East. Hopefully the road map to peace will see a new start. Canada intends to play a role there, within that, in building the institutions. That is the kind of vision the Canadian government intends to put before the world.
(1430)
Mr. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is rather incredible. We had the Prime Minister's party taking out ads against Bush's foreign policy and now he refuses to confront it with any kind of clear position that Canada might bring forward on missile defence.
My question is simply, will the Prime Minister ensure that there is a vote in this House prior to any aspect of the decision to get involved in missile defence being made, or did George Bush not allow him to agree to that?
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know, there was discussion, certainly during the amendments that the Conservatives put forward in the address in reply. They passed unanimously in this House. That amendment clearly stated that there would be a vote before the government would make its decision.
* * *
Citizenship and Immigration
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the citizenship and immigration minister personally helped one of her campaign workers do an end run around the immigration system. She ordered civil servants to give a “you get to stay in Canada card” to a stripper who came here on a temporary work visa.
The woman's new husband admitted they volunteered for the minister hoping to avoid going through normal channels. Sadly, it worked. The minister cut a special deal. How can the minister be trusted to fix a system that she herself bent for a political supporter?
Hon. Judy Sgro (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for the question, and unfortunately I was not here yesterday or I would have answered it then as well.
It is clear that under the Citizenship and Immigration Act and under my parliamentary responsibilities I have the opportunity to grant humanitarian and compassionate grounds on individual cases. I get hundreds of requests from every member in this House, including the Leader of the Opposition, on these cases. They are looked at on a case by case basis on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is certainly funny that the minister used her discretion so generously in support of one of her own political workers.
Thousands are waiting anxiously for their Canadian status. Thousands have made these kinds of applications. Sometimes it takes years to go through the normal channels, but suddenly this woman who worked to help the minister get re-elected gets fortunate enough to get a “you get to stay in Canada card” on the orders of the minister. Why does the Prime Minister and why does the government see nothing wrong with the minister giving an unfair advantage to one of her supporters?
Hon. Judy Sgro (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me thank the member again and let me just remind the member that on June 11 she put in a request, and what was that, 10 days before the election, on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. I issue hundreds of--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Judy Sgro: You asked the question. Yes, she did.
The Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the minister appreciates all the help with her reply, but the minister was asked a question. She seems to have a reply of her own. All hon. members will want to hear it. We will have a little order in the House while the minister has the floor.
Hon. Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, Parliament has given the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, under the act, the ability to exercise humanitarian and compassionate grounds. It is something that is done for hundreds of members of Parliament and people all across Canada. Many of those are members from the opposition.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it looks like the minister is getting help from her friend on dancing around the question.
The citizenship and immigration minister's lack of credibility must have been common knowledge during the election as a man wanted for deportation by her own department delivered pizza and brazenly hung out at her campaign office. It is almost as if the minister put out a sign, “Help me get elected and I'll let you say in Canada”.
Why does the minister believe that the rules apply to everyone but her Liberal friends?
Hon. Judy Sgro (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, hundreds of people volunteer in election campaigns. I am not sure about Conservatives, but in Liberal ridings we have lots of people who volunteer.
Let me tell the House that issues of national security are extremely important to all of us on this side. If the member has any allegations or any evidence to support this allegation, I suggest he should bring it forward and not just use his mouth to put the words.
(1435)
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister has a responsibility to uphold the rule of law. Yet she failed to report the fact that she had a deportee working for her. We know it is not because she is incapable of working the phone. After all, she made a call to get a minister's permit for her stripper friend.
Why the double standard when it comes to her Liberal friends? Why did the minister not report this individual to her own department?
Hon. Judy Sgro (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would be great if the hon. member would get his facts straight rather than taking them as whatever he reads in the media as being the gospel truth.
As I said before, issues of national security continue to be very important to me, as they are to all of us on this side of the House.
* * *
[Translation]
Budget Surplus
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last winter, the Office of the Auditor General indicated that the government could very well pass, before March 31, legislation allowing it to use its budget surplus for purposes other than the repayment of the public debt.
Given that it has to make money available to resolve the well-identified problems faced by people, ordinary people, and that it can afford to do so, will the government make a commitment to introduce in Parliament legislation providing that the surplus may be used for purposes other than just applying it to the debt?
[English]
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members know, the federal government has over the last number of years run surpluses and those surpluses have been applied to the debt. The debt has been reduced from $562 billion to just a touch over $500 billion. That has worked a great deal of good in the economy and for the nation's well-being. By almost any criteria, we are a well-managed government.
We will take the hon. member's consideration under advisement.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for too many years, the Liberal government has been misleading the public and going after the wrong target by applying all its surpluses to the debt instead of correcting social injustices such as the way youth and women are treated under the EI program.
Will the government recognize that introducing in Parliament legislation on the use of surpluses would help tackle problems like employment insurance and the fiscal imbalance? This will not prevent him from continuing to repay part of the debt, if it wants.
[English]
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has had a happy circumstance in the last seven years. In the last seven years we have run surpluses and that has led to unparalleled prosperity in the nation. We have used those moneys to pay down the debt.
This is far from misleading. In fact it is the most open and transparent process in the world. I would encourage the hon. member to engage in that.
* * *
[Translation]
Aerospace Industry
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the middle of the election campaign, the Prime Minister announced $500 million in financial assistance for the automotive industry in Ontario. While a similar situation is now arising with Bombardier in Quebec, the government is dithering about making a commitment like the one it made for the automotive industry.
What is the federal government waiting for to act and to announce that it will help Bombardier and Quebec, like it helped GM, Ford and Ontario before? What is it waiting for?
[English]
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the automotive strategy that the government is pursuing is of benefit across the country. I refer the hon. member to a speech made by my counterpart in Quebec. He said that a healthy auto sector was crucial since in Quebec it generated annual sales in excess of $3 billion and employed 15,000 people in some 250 companies. That is the auto sector in Quebec. We are driving the aerospace sector as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is all good and fine to support the auto industry, but other countries and certain U.S states have already made very tempting offers to Bombardier to carry out the development and building of a new aircraft there. The federal government must do for the aviation industry what it did for the automotive industry in Ontario last spring.
Does it not realize that time is of the essence and that, if it does not act, it will be responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs in the aerospace industry in Quebec? This is urgent, and the federal government must act now.
[English]
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have provided an enormous amount of support to the aerospace industry. We continue to develop an aerospace strategy for all of Canada. We will continue to execute that strategy. We will deal with individual companies and the entire sector so they serve to employ hundreds of thousands of people across the country.
* * *
(1440)
Citizenship and Immigration
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it turns out it was not just the pizza delivery man lounging around the immigration minister's campaign office. Her chief of staff and two other employees apparently spent time in the minister's region during the election, this time at the expense of taxpayers. In fact, from May 21 to June 29, staff members claimed more than $11,000 in travel expenses.
Why did the minister allow her staff to claim expenses to work in her riding during the election?
Hon. Judy Sgro (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. member on her election. I have not had a chance to do that.
I can assure the member that any expenses that are submitted at any time from my offices are totally above board and within the Treasury Board guidelines.
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is noted on the website of the ministry that the minister's director of parliamentary affairs claimed nearly $5,900 in expenses for an entire month for travel to the minister's riding, ending on the day of the election.
Will the minister reimburse taxpayers for the election expenses of her staffers?
Hon. Judy Sgro (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly, as ministers, we continue to do our jobs even if an election campaign is ongoing. My staff continue to do theirs.
* * *
Prime Minister
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, according to access to information, the Prime Minister's seven month food bill on air caviar was $71,000. The champagne bill has not landed yet. We do not know what was on that menu. The Prime Minister's excesses in just seven months is roughly equivalent to what three Newfoundlanders earned in 2001.
How can the Prime Minister justify spending the equivalent of the annual salary of three Newfoundland families on sky high food bills when many Canadians are going to food banks?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of the country is not only the Prime Minister of the Hill; he is the Prime Minister of the country from coast to coast to coast. It is his responsibility and his duty to go across the country and to visit and talk with Canadians in every big city and every small hamlet, wherever that may be. I will continue to do that.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is also the Prime Minister's duty to spend taxpayer money responsibly. Maybe he should spend some time in the grocery store.
Here is a news flash for the Prime Minister and the government, and it will not cost him $1 million. Canadians want lower taxes, not publicly funded partisan trips. How can the Prime Minister justify spending $1 million on his pre-election campaign a la carte when he will not give Canadians a tax break? Just who was he listening to on these luxury flights?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that as finance minister I was part of the government that brought in $100 billion in tax cuts, the largest tax cuts since the second world war. However, I will also say to the hon. member that after the election campaign, I then went across Nunavut, across the Northwest Territories into Yukon. I visited Pond Inlet and Rankin. I will continue to do that kind of thing.
The Prime Minister of the country ought to be out seeing Canadians, not sitting here with those who would build firewalls around their province.
* * *
Health
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, diabetes, including type 1 diabetes, is a disease that affects hundreds of thousands of Canadians. The Department of Health needs to support research and education programs which will meet the serious needs of those affected by this difficult illness.
Could the Minister of Health reassure the people about the government's continued commitment to this important matter?
(1445)
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes the growing epidemic of diabetes and the social and economic burden it places on the communities and Canadians across the country. Because there is no way to prevent juvenile diabetes, the focus is on finding the cure.
In 1999 the federal government introduced the Canadian diabetes strategy to help prevent and control the disease. This year we are devoting $30 million in funding, and $6.3 million has been allocated directly to juvenile diabetes research.
* * *
Finance
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who, when he was finance minister, actually pioneered the concept of lowballing the surplus and fudging forecasts.
After 11 years of Liberal rule, tuition is higher than it was, pollution is worse than it was, more people live on the street, we have an environmental crisis and housing problems. Liberals made these choices.
Will the Prime Minister assure the House that an unanticipated surplus this year will not just go to the debt, but that the House will choose what to do with it?
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, prebudget consultations are all about that. We have a surplus. We are consulting Canadians, including members on the committee, as to what is the appropriate use of a budget surplus.
There are certain allocations that the government has made to health care and equalization, et cetera. There is still some money to be discussed. I welcome the hon. member's contribution to that discussion.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister might want to rise in his place today and talk about investing in Canadians and not just about tax breaks for corporations and debt repayment to the banks.
Given the fact that there is an unanticipated surplus and the fact that we know there is an environmental deficit, a social deficit, growing poverty, a housing crisis and so on, will the Prime Minister agree to put the unanticipated surplus into these vital areas for Canadians?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, investing in Canadians, would that be $41 billion in the health care program? Would investing in Canadians be bringing forth the first national early learning and child care program? Would investing in Canadians be increasing the amount of money that is going into our universities, into research and development? Would investing in Canadians be bringing down the kinds of financial policies that have given the country one of the strongest job creation records of any other major industrial country?
* * *
Technology Partnerships Canada
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government has insisted for years that all loans through Technology Partnerships Canada would be repaid in full. To date the program has spent $2.7 billion taxpayer dollars, but only has recovered $89 million, less than 3%. That is a shame.
Now an internal Industry Canada report makes clear what the opposition and the media have been saying for years, that these loans will not be repaid in full, not even close.
Why has the government consistently misled Canadians by telling them and the House that these loans would be repaid? Why is the government continuing to waste taxpayer dollars on corporate--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Industry.
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said right from the first day that I was in this portfolio that Technology Partnerships Canada is not intended to be a chartered bank. It is intended to partner with companies to make technology investments, to create jobs that are based on high technology and human capital, and to drive the competitiveness of this economy.
* * *
[Translation]
Economic Development
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the Parti Québécois fiasco surrounding Gaspésia, our Liberal hon. minister has admitted that his department already knew about the almost insurmountable risks involved in this project back in 2001. When things got really bad, he decided not to inform the unsecured suppliers, to remain at risk and to protect the dubious interests of the PQ government.
Did the government ignore the information it had available and did it give in to pressure from its sovereignist partners?
(1450)
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, permit me to repeat what I said yesterday, which is that if there are no risks, then business does not need the government. The government intervenes by taking the risks it must in order to provide jobs for the people affected by these businesses.
Second, we had $80 million for this program and it appears that we had got to $50.6 million when the problems arose. At that point we stopped payments of all kinds. Thirdly, I am glad to hear the Alliance talking about Gaspé for the first time. The last time I heard anything about it, it was when the dead were going to vote in their leadership campaign.
* * *
[English]
Justice
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the American ambassador has warned that the government's plan to decriminalize marijuana would exasperate already dire congestion problems at the U.S. border. The justice minister stated that the U.S. attorney general understood our position and that he had no problem with it. Who are we to believe, the ambassador or the justice minister?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the American policy, as expressed by the American attorney general, was an understanding that this is not an irritant in Canada-U.S. relations. There is full cooperation in cross border matters. We hosted the American attorney general and the secretary of homeland security. Our policy is understood and indeed, American states have the same policy in even more decriminalizing terms than does Canada.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as soon as the minister stood up and said that the American attorney general had no problem with the issue, the American ambassador had to correct him and said that there would be congestion at the border, at a time when we have softwood lumber disputes, pork disputes, and all types of other trade disputes.
The American ambassador has made his position very clear on behalf of the American government. Why is the minister continuing to mislead Canadians?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the American ambassador is aware of the position of the former attorney general of the United States. He is aware of that country's position and has not contradicted it, nor has he contradicted our position.
* * *
[Translation]
Social Programs
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Finance estimates that his surplus will be $8 billion, there are some important issues that have been left untouched: parental leave in particular, although that was supposedly settled before the election.
What is holding the Minister of Finance back from laying the money on the table so that the fathers and mothers of Quebec can benefit from decent parental leave? He made promises during the last election, so let him keep those promises now.
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do not make it a habit to carry out negotiations on the floor of the House. I have already said that I am in the process of negotiating parental leave with the province. So far, it is satisfied with the progress made. We will continue that process.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as is the case with parental leave, the Minister of Social Development ought to take advantage of his finance colleague's surplus to hand the money over to Quebec, which already has its own child care system.
Does the minister realize that, if he wants to settle the child care problem immediately, there is a very simple solution: hand over to Quebec the money he has earmarked for child care, and do it now, with no strings attached?
[English]
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have been meeting with the provinces and territories. The matter of funding was not discussed. It is a matter that will be coming up at subsequent meetings.
* * *
Middle East
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government has made a decision to fund the UN Relief and Works Agency despite the fact that there is clear evidence that this UN agency has on its payroll agents of the terrorist group Hamas.
Why is the government taking such a casual attitude toward the security of Palestinians while it has terrorists in its midst?
(1455)
Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear to us that we will take a position that is important for the security of all, particularly given the situation that exists today in the Middle East, and that provides us an opportunity to strive toward a better peaceful outcome.
I know the hon. member is passionate about some of these notions that float around from time to time. However, the reality is that the government will continue to work very hard to ensure that there is a peaceful resolution in the Middle East, and one that ensures a just and peaceful solution for all.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, protecting people from terrorism is not a notion. It is a necessity. The member probably does not realize that Canada is not one of the four nations at the table negotiating a road map to peace in the Middle East. The very least we could be doing is ensuring that Canadian taxpayer dollars are going to Palestinians in need, not to terrorists who are determined to wreck the process.
Why is the government afraid to demand accountability from these agencies that we fund?
Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange that the member and his party at one point were actually suggesting the abolition of UNRWA. That is not even a position that the Israeli government would have taken under the circumstances.
We will work very hard with all of our parties and all those who are there to ensure that there is in fact a peaceful solution to what is occurring in the Middle East. We think this is a good time to talk about these things. It is important that Canada reflect very clearly on some of the values that it can import and bring to bear on this very important discussion.
* * *
Justice
Mr. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, this is Restorative Justice Week in Canada. It is a time when interested groups come together to discuss new ways to resolve disputes and new ways to view Criminal Code acts.
Can the minister tell us what the Liberal government has done and is doing to promote the use of restorative justice in our justice system?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, restorative justice represents a paradigm shift in our understanding of crime and criminal justice. Crime is seen not only as a wrongful act by the offender, but in terms of an assault on relationships and community peace. Justice is seen in terms of not only accountability, but in terms of greater healing relationships. Our justice programs have shown lowered recidivism, validation of the victim, and restitution compliance. We will continue to promote and enhance these projects.
* * *
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Cathy Maurice and Margaret Galloway in my riding and Lesley Massey in Calgary are the widows of Alberta RCMP officers who gave their lives on the job. Their husbands were given full regimental funerals and rightfully so. Commissioner Zaccardelli was there and rightfully so. Hundreds of fellow officers were there and rightfully so. These widows were billed for a large part of the funeral costs. That was wrong.
Will the government immediately correct this shameful injustice and pay for these funeral costs?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does raise an important question. I want to reassure the hon. member that the RCMP consulted with the families in question, as it does with all families when the tragic death of a serving member occurs. I understand that, while this is an operational matter for the force, the situation involving the three families mentioned is under review and there are ongoing consultations with all three families.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, formal funerals were held for these RCMP officers who were killed in the line of duty because formal funerals were requested by the RCMP. The Treasury Board has no difficulty paying the $3,600 first class ticket and other frivolous expenses for the commissioner of the RCMP to be there, yet it is denying grieving widows full reimbursement.
I ask the President of the Treasury Board, why does this continue?
(1500)
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the RCMP consulted with the families in question as it does with all families in these kinds of tragic circumstances. It is my understanding that the commissioner has taken this matter up. It is under review and discussions are ongoing with the families.
* * *
[Translation]
Housing
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ): Mr. Speaker, everyone knows it: the federal government is rolling in surpluses. Now it tells us that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has recently produced a surplus of $2.5 billion. By 2008, this surplus could even reach $6 billion.
Is the Minister of Labour and Housing prepared to commit right now to investing this surplus in building or renovating affordable social housing?
[English]
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope the member will applaud CMHC and the government's initiative to make it possible for the highest home ownership rates bar none in the world. There is no doubt that the premiums from the mortgage insurance fund make it possible to fund social housing and affordable housing initiatives across the country, including Quebec. And yes, we are reviewing the options available to the government with regard to the surpluses in CMHC to provide more housing.
* * *
Research and Development
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Genome Ca