1997-11-07

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-16, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Interpretation Act (powers to arrest and enter dwelling), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: There are six motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-16.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.
Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 6 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 2 applies to Motions Nos. 4 and 6.
Motions Nos. 3 and 5 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 3 applies to Motion No. 5.
I shall now propose Motion No. 1 to the House.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-16, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 45 on page 5 and lines 1 and 2 on page 6 with the following:
“529.5 A warrant under section 529.1 or an authorization under section 529 or 529.4 may be issued on an information submitted by telephone or other means of telecommunication and, for that purpose, section 487.1 applies, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to the warrant or authorization.”
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this amendment with some regret that we are in this situation. We are facing a problem within the Department of Justice when important amendments are being made to the Criminal Code that for all intents and purposes are being ramrodded through at the committee level and through the House.
As a result of the supreme court decision in the Queen v Feeney, the Department of Justice was faced with a situation in which it had to fill a gap that had been left by the supreme court when it struck down sections of the Criminal Code that pertained to the powers of arrest.
What has happened here is akin to the trampling on the right of Parliament to actively and in a substantive way participate in the debate and the process to make recommendations as they pertain to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Time was certainly of the essence. The supreme court, by virtue of a stay that was entered back in July of 1997, gave Parliament the time to react to fill the gap left by the decision handed down in the Queen v Feeney.
The problem that I have with this is that five and a half months have past. The justice department was given ample opportunity to react, to make the appropriate amendments to address this situation. By the time it reached committee stage, members of Parliament, the elected officials of this House, were given less than five days to consider it. To be precise, they were given approximately eight hours to discuss, in the presence of witnesses and among each other, these very important amendments which affect the powers of arrest for all police throughout the land.
The committee did have the benefit of hearing a number of very important witnesses. The witnesses included the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Chiefs of Police. We heard from a victims' advocate group, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime.
We also had the benefit of hearing from a very distinguished criminal lawyer, a gentleman by the name of Irwin Koziebrocki. Mr. Koziebrocki is the treasurer of the Criminal Lawyers Association of Canada. Of all the witnesses, he made a statement which I found quite startling. He deemed one of the proposed amendments to be unconstitutional. He said that it would not withstand a charter of rights challenge.
That is not to say that his opinion could not be wrong. However, when an experienced trial and appeal court lawyer makes this pronouncement before a committee, hours before the amendments are tabled and given third reading, that should give the department and all members of the committee reason to pause and to ponder whether we want to have this legislation pushed through in a flawed form, leaving it open to the possibility that within months, weeks or days we could be faced with another court challenge which may strike down, in the worst case scenario, these amendments.
The first amendment which I have put before the House pertains to the authorization of telewarrants in Canada. This amendment came about after some consultation with the Quebec bar association, which did not appear before the committee but which submitted a brief.
The amendment speaks to the evolution of new technology in communications which should be made available to all peace officers in the country.
The reality of Canada, of this vast land, is that we are not all centred in large metropolitan areas like Calgary, Toronto or Halifax. A great part of this country is spread out in rural areas. Police officers are often working out of one or two person detachments. They need to have access to justices of the peace. They need to be able to get authorization to act quickly and in a very decisive way.
Telewarrants, this new form of technology that we have with fax machines, with telephones and with cell phones, increase the possibility that a police officer can do something when faced with exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances is a newly coined phrase that came out of the decision of the Queen v Feeney. Exigent circumstances often exist in the daily lives of police officers that are faced with very serious situations.
Telewarrants permit police officers to contact justices of the peace, but that is all for naught if the resources are not allocated to make justices of the peace available. It is easy to pick up a phone or to dial a fax number, but if no one is on the other end of the line to receive the information and authorize the warrant, a real problem exists.
I would suggest that this amendment goes further than the present amendment as proposed by the government in enabling peace officers in broader circumstances to avail themselves of the ability to have a warrant granted. I want to add to that the necessity of the resources. The resources have to go cheek and jowl with the ability to get these warrants. We need to ensure that there are going to be more justices of the peace available, particularly in rural parts of the country.
I would emphasize the remarks I made at the outset. It is with some regret I find myself in this situation where we have to debate this further on the floor of the House of Commons. The committee level, had it been conducted in a more professional and timely way, would have avoided this necessity.
This amendment is one that all members of the House should consider and support. It goes to increasing the security for all Canadians and aids the police in their very important role in enforcing the criminal law within the country. As members of this House, particularly members of the justice committee, we have to be very strident in our attempts to oversee what is happening with the amendments to the Criminal Code.
The Minister of Justice, the chief executive officer for administering law in this country, can and should have at least contemplated the necessity of rising from her seat, walking down Wellington Street, knocking on the door of the Supreme Court of Canada and ask for an extension. It would have avoided the necessity of pushing this through at the eleventh hour. It would have allowed us to have proper debate at the committee level and if necessary on the floor of the House of Commons.
I speak in favour of this amendment. I would be very interested to hear the remarks of the hon. members present today.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to start by repeating what has already been said in the House, which is that the government was obliged by the supreme court to ensure that both sides of the House could meet a court set deadline. This was not a deadline set by the government but imposed on us by the Supreme Court of Canada.
I would also add that in my view sufficient time has been allowed, both in the House and in committee, for opposition motions to be brought. Unfortunately, only one was received in committee. There was no discussion by the opposition on these motions. This is really stretching a point, because there was ample time available Wednesday evening for discussion and the opposition brought no amendments.
I would like to point out that we feel that, yes, the deadline is a little short. The deadline was imposed on us by the supreme court. It was not a deadline that we imposed on this House.
Second, there was ample time. The committee members on the government side were more than willing to spend more time discussing any motion brought forward by any member of the opposition. None of these motions was brought forward. There was discussion but none of the motions was brought forward to be discussed at the committee level. The opposition members decided to bring them forward in the House.
Fearmongering from the opposition by saying this will be unconstitutional is presumptive on the part of the opposition. We do not know whether this will be declared unconstitutional. We had no constitutional experts that came before the committee to to testify except a lawyer. I think that is an assumption that should not have been made.
The government is not able to support motion No. 1. This affects the very notion of practicability. The rule with respect to telewarrants is that the police are not in a position to meet a justice of the peace in person. This rule has been on the books for approximately 10 years. It is nothing new and it is seen as necessary to defend the constitutionality of the entire telewarrant scheme in the Criminal Code.
Motions 2, 4 and 6 all relate to the use of the singular to refer to dwelling house in the bill. Some have argued that in order to allow for warrants to apply to more than one dwelling house we need to refer to dwelling house in the plural. That is why we have the Interpretation Act. The Interpretation Act already provides that the singular includes the plural. All federal legislation, and this legislation in particular, Bill C-16, has been drafted with that rule in mind.
This amendment seems to undermine the way all federal legislation is drafted and would be a bad precedent in my opinion. It would make the interpretation of other statutes more difficult and uncertain in the future.
We are not able to support this motion as it is inconsistent with other provisions of the Criminal Code.
On Motion No 3, we are not able to support this motion either. The reason is that the motion addresses form 7 because it is a warrant for arrest. This warrant has been known to law for over 100 years and requires that the person be identified. If we cannot identify a person we should not be seeking a warrant for an arrest. That implies a person has been charged with a crime.
However, the government would be amenable for supporting Motion No. 5, and I will speak to that motion.
This amendment relates to form 7.1 and section 529.1 of the Criminal Code. The amendment would make it clear in the form what is already permitted by section 529.1. That section makes it possible to obtain a warrant for entry in order to arrest someone who is identifiable as opposed to identified.
I believe that if this form were amended as proposed by the hon. member we would be improving on the language in the bill by making it perfectly clear on the form itself that this is possible.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this extremely important bill. Like the members who spoke before me, I think I will say a few words on the procedure imposed on the Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
I know that it is following a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Feeney case that the government was required so to speak to amend the provisions if it wanted to correct the situation. The ruling was made on May 22, 1997, in the middle of the electoral campaign. However, as I openly said in committee—and there is no reason to hide this—officials wisely held consultations across Canada and Quebec.
My concern in all this is that there were no consultations before the political side of this issue was addressed, that it was only on Friday of last week that Bill C-16, which is in fact very important, was tabled in this House, which has been sitting for eight weeks. It may not be the fault of the Liberal members, but it is surely the fault of the federal government's cumbersome bureaucracy and procedures if we have to accelerate the review process as we are doing.
However, after consulting with people who have an interest in seeing this bill improve the Criminal Code, I believe that this bill is generally acceptable. We do not support it without reservations, but considering the time we have to review it, I believe that as a first step, it is something we can live with.
I will deal with the amendments in each group. I will speak very briefly on the first group, which includes Motion No. 1. I think that the wording of Section 529.5 in Bill C-16 reflects in fact what is found in other provisions, other laws. I don't think we should amend this section as proposed by the member of the Conservative Party. I think that the wording in the section on telewarrants meets requirements that have already been established in this area.
I want to read it to you because I think it clearly indicates that such warrants may only be issued in exceptional circumstances.
The rule is that the peace officer must appear personally before the judge to make an application for a warrant, but it can happen in exceptional circumstances that it would be impracticable, to use the words in the section, or impossible for the police officer to appear before a judge. It can also be an emergency situation—and there is a section that deals with these—, and the police officer cannot appear before a judge.
The section, which is very clear, says the following:
If a peace officer believes that it would be impracticable in the circumstances to appear personally before a judge or justice to make an application for a warrant under Section 529.1 or an authorization under Section 529 or 529.4, the warrant or authorization may be issued on an information submitted by telephone or other means of telecommunication and, for that purpose, Section 487.1 applies, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to the warrant or authorization.
I think that the wording reflects the purpose of this section, and to keep our laws in general as simple as possible, I believe that we should not amend this section because it is similar to all other sections dealing with telewarrants. That is why we will oppose Motion No. 1 as presented.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam Speaker, I thought I might have to get up on a chair to get noticed.
I regret very much the situation that the House finds itself in at the moment from a number of points of view. I thought there had been an understanding to dispose of this matter by today. Now it appears that technically speaking that was not the case. There was only an agreement, technically speaking, to begin the debate today and this will now carry over, I presume. It also means that some of us, having taken the agreement a little more seriously than others, find ourselves in a bit of difficulty.
Fundamentally I think the government has to take some responsibility for this because I see a pattern emerging here. I think this is the third time in this Parliament when we have been presented with something that has to be dealt with by a certain date. There is always truth in that claim but the truth comes from the fact that the government has left it until the 11th hour, so to speak.
The opposition in some cases has been co-operative and in some cases not. The government made a similar argument with respect, for instance, to the CPP, that it had to have this through by a particular time because it had an agreement with the provinces and were prepared to move closure on that.
In respect of this particular bill, we thought that the government's argument had more merit but was not entirely meritorious in the sense that this is something the government has known about since July. It is also something Parliament could have been dealing with when we first got back. If the government had done its work between the time it was elected and the time that Parliament came back we would not be in the situation we are in this week where we only had one week to deal with these particular amendments.
I do not know why these amendments could not have been moved in committee but I assume there must have been some good reason why the hon. member moved them now at report stage. Perhaps he tried and the government prevented it in some way. However, it is surely the case that the amendments we have now before us mean that this will be carried over until after the break unless there is some procedural way of dealing with this that I do not know about at the moment.
Obviously the NDP has supported the government along with all the other parties in dealing with this situation that the supreme court has put back in the hands of Parliament by virtue of its decision in the Feeney case.
We will be considering very carefully the amendments put forward by the hon. member and will render a judgment in due course.
Eleni Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, I just wanted to know whether the hon. member who presented the motion has agreed that we can separate Motion No. 3 from Motion No. 5.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The parliamentary secretary is getting a little ahead of us. At the moment, we are dealing with Group No. 1, Motion No. 1. We will go on to the next ones after that.
Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the motion lost on division.
(Motion No. 1 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 6 will be grouped for debate.
Peter MacKay: moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-16, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 6 the following:
“529.6 For the application of section 529 to 529.5 inclusive, and without referring to the Interpretation Act, the word “dwelling-house” shall be deemed to include “dwelling- houses” when the circumstances arise.”
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-16, in Clause 3, be amended by
(a) replacing line 27 on page 7 with the following:
“house or houses);”
(b) replacing line 29 on page 7 with the following:
“to enter the dwelling-house or houses for the purpose of”
(c) replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 7 with the following:
“dwelling-house or houses unless you have, immediately before entering the dwelling-house or houses, reason-”
(d) replacing line 36 on page 7 with the following:
“dwelling-house or houses.”
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-16, in Clause 3, be amended by
(a) replacing line 21 on page 8 with the following:
“in (here describe dwelling-house or houses);”
(b) replacing line 23 on page 8 with the following:
“enter the dwelling house or houses for the purpose of ar-”
Madam Speaker, I am proposing in this amendment a very practical common sense solution that would go a long way in assisting police officers when encountering a situation where they are looking for an escaped criminal, breach of parole individual, or looking for a person wanted by the police for a serious or indictable offence.
In its present form this amendment speaks of the naming of a single dwelling house. I know the government's response may include the Interpretation Act wherein the singular includes the plural. One of the purposes of parliament should be to create new, wordy and mellifluous sounding legislation and to simplify for the police, and as I said in the House yesterday for the purpose of the general public, understanding of the legislation that directly applies to them.
This amendment is quite simple in its drafting. It includes dwelling houses rather than dwelling house. It would allow a police officer faced with a situation where he had to seek a warrant to go and speak to the justice of the peace and explain. It also allows him to name specifically the areas where he is looking.
For example, if a criminal was believed to be harboured in the home of a friend, at a clubhouse or at a residence that he was known to frequent, the police could quite simply place on the warrant a number of dwelling houses or house in which they were searching for him. It gives the police more flexibility in their ability to investigate. It is a very straightforward amendment. I would be surprised if the government were not quick to embrace it.
I also want to address a question posed by my hon. friend from the NDP with respect to why this is the forum in which to make these amendments.
As I indicated earlier, what occurred in committee was a simple ramrod railroad approach to clause by clause discussion of these amendments. There was no opportunity to discuss or to put these amendments forward. It was done in the blink of an eye without any ability to put the amendments forward in any substantive way, to the point where we were so rushed in the compromise of this committee that we did not even have the opportunity to speak of the ground rules that would govern the committee itself. This was done after the fact.
We brought this piece of legislation to the committee level without having set the rules to govern the committee that was going to be making decisions on the amendments. This causes me great concern.
I do not blame the parliamentary secretary. I have empathy for her and the chairman of the justice committee who found themselves in this position and were doing the government's bidding in a very uncomfortable situation.
I put this amendment forward in all god faith and in all seriousness. I encourage hon. members of the House to look at it. I have tried to explain it in a very straightforward way. It is one which would assist police in their very necessary and very public duty to carry out and exercise arrests throughout the country.
Once again I encourage members to support this amendment and I thank the House for its indulgence.
Eleni Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, I will just repeat that we on this side of the House do not support Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 6.
I am not looking for sympathy from the opposition members. As other members have said, there was agreement of all parties to expedite passage of the legislation through the House.
Again I repeat that we have an obligation to the Supreme Court of Canada to meet its deadline. I would appreciate co-operation, but I am certainly not looking for sympathy from opposition members.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I will not speak more than a few moments. I want to reply briefly to what the member from the government side said and to support my colleague.
The government made the point that it has an obligation to pass the legislation as quickly as possible. The Liberals had six months. They knew it was coming but they have left it to the 11th hour. We have seen time and time again in the last four years that they ram things through at the last moment. I want to register my objection to the process here.
We did not have the opportunity at committee to introduce a lot of these amendments. I support the amendments that are being made. I think they are being put forth in good faith. They are proper amendments.
The government is dismissing them at hand because they come from the opposition. I do not think that is acceptable. I would like to register my objection to these kinds of things happening in the House.
For democracy to function properly we need time to look at legislation, to examine it properly and to make sure it is the best legislation we can have. We have seen too much legislation being passed with time allocation, being rammed through at the last minute. Then we come back and realize that we did not get it right, that we made some grave errors. It is happening again and again.
We could have done this months ago. This could have been introduced at the beginning of this Parliament but it was not. That ought to be on the record to show that we do not like what is happening in the House.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the comment made by the parliamentary secretary that the government had to get this legislation through. There was reference to the court essentially setting a deadline without any compromise. That is not the case. There is precedent that there can be extensions. A request could have been made to the supreme court quite simply. That is my point of clarification.
Michel Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, I will take 30 seconds since I want this bill to pass today. However, I want to add my voice to these three motions: Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 6.
I would say first off that I oppose these motions and I will tell you why briefly. As we know, an arrest warrant, a warrant to enter a dwelling house or other similar warrants already contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is somewhat similar, in fact, to what happened in the arrest in the Feeney case.
I believe the amendment proposed by the hon. member broadening the scope of arrest or entry warrants to apply to dwelling houses contravenes the charter. It is too broad and too vague. I think we are leaving ourselves open once again to criticism, and certainly to having these amendments to Bill C-16, or more specifically, clause 529.6, rejected by the courts as in the Feeney case. This is our only reason for opposing these three motions.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 4 and 6.
Motions Nos. 3 and 5 will be grouped for debate.
Michel Bellehumeur: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have two points. First, unless I heard wrong, in calling the vote you mentioned only Motion No. 2, while the vote should have been on Group No. 2, which includes three motions: Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 6. A vote was called on Motion No. 2 only. This was my first point.
Second, while I sit at the other end of the chamber, it was obvious to me that the nays were louder than the yeas. I wonder if there has not been a misunderstanding here. If so, perhaps you could consider taking the vote over, specifying this time that the vote will be on Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 6.
Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Speaker, when you make a ruling on something like this, another member cannot argue with you, dispute the ruling and reverse it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, I would like to point out that Motions Nos. 4 and 6 were included in Motion No. 2.
I will now deal with the point of order raised by the other hon. member.
The decision has been taken. On the other hand, if the House wishes to give me other instructions, I am prepared to listen.
Eleni Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, I would also concur with the hon. member from the Bloc. I believe in terms of the yeas and the nays, that the nays had it also.
Also, we would like to voice our objection to the ruling of the Chair.
I agree that it was not mentioned that Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 6 were going to be grouped together and that we were going to vote on a package.
Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Speaker, I would remind you that if you reverse your ruling in this case you are setting a precedent.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Madam Speaker, may I suggest that there is substantial agreement in the House on the importance of this legislation. We are 10 minutes away from question period. I wonder if the House would be agreeable to proceed with the next group of motions. Discussions could be held during question period and in the minutes leading up to question period to resolve this situation to the satisfaction of the House.
If we could move on to debate the next group of motions then we might be able to conclude the business which the House wishes to conclude today.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam Speaker, Fridays are supposed to be slow days, but not always.
I bring to your attention Standing Order 10. I ask that it be applied to this case and that we not have any further discussion of whether rulings are appealable. Let us get on with it. I think that Standing Order 10 is very clear as to how things should be conducted in the House.
Mr. André Harvey: Madam Speaker, with all due respect for the office you hold, I would like to point out that it is absolutely impossible to reverse a ruling made by the Chair.
Bill Blaikie: Madam Speaker, it would be most unusual if the House were to somehow try to overturn your ruling by doing what I do not understand it to be permitted to do, which is to appeal your judgment of what you heard in terms of yeas and nays.
I happen to share the view that you heard differently than I heard. But it is up to the Chair to judge what the Chair hears and to make that judgment. It puts the House in a rather difficult position, because certainly had you ruled the other way with respect to yeas and nays, opposition members would have had a chance to decide whether they wanted a recorded vote on this. Perhaps they would have risen anyway. The irony is that the government was forced by virtue of your ruling to cause a recorded vote on the very thing that it did not want a recorded vote on.
I am sure the government regards that as unfortunate but whether it is reversible or not is another matter.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The Chair has heard many arguments to that effect. The decision remains unchanged for now. We shall proceed to Motion No. 3.
Peter MacKay: moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-16, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 6 the following:
“or a person with the following description (—),”
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-16, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 8 with the following:
“of A.B., or a person with the following description (—),”
In circumstances where the exact name of the individual sought is unknown to police officers, rather than put in the actual written name of that individual, they could put in a physical description, thus increasing their ability in investigations where the name of the person sought by police for whatever reason could be pencilled in. Obviously this will be at the discretion of the justice of the peace. It is something that will be monitored. It is not an arbitrary or frivolous change to the form that would be included in the warrant.
I would strenuously suggest that this is something to which the government should give due consideration in its adaptation of both amendments with respect to clause 3 in the bill, as they pertain to Form 7 and Form 7.1. For those reasons I would again solicit the support of the House, including the government, with respect to this amendment.
Eleni Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, without belabouring the point, we had asked the hon. member if he would be willing to separate motion No. 3 from motion No. 5. I take it to mean that he is not going to agree to separate motion No. 3 from motion No. 5?
Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I have no difficulty whatsoever with having these two amendments split and discussed separately, that is amendment 3 and amendment 5. I am certainly prepared to agree to that suggestion by the parliamentary secretary.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the House agree to have a debate and to hold two separate votes on Motions Nos. 3 and 5?
Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Speaker, again members are challenging your ruling. I think there are some things going on this morning that are unacceptable.
Look at what has happened during discussion of the previous motion. You made a ruling and the government, rather than letting the legislation proceed, challenged the vote. It is so intent on blocking these amendments that it would rather delay the bill than let us proceed and approve the amendment. The government forced a vote and challenged the ruling. Now it is challenging it again.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I do not want to take up too much time of the House. It is already a relatively short day.
Understand clearly there has been a tremendous amount of co-operation by all parties on an issue of significance which has been presented to the legislature in not what people would recognize as ideal conditions, both from the opposition and the government side. We have arrived at this juncture, at report stage and third reading, and clearly and emphatically the government has no intention, never had or ever would question or appeal the ruling of a chair. We give utmost respect to the authority of the Chair.
For what it is worth to the new members, I had the privilege and honour of sitting in that chair for three years. I hold it the highest esteem, as all my colleagues do on both sides of the House.
The question at this time is whether, in the ruling that was made the Speaker and respecting that ruling, there would be unanimous consent. We know from time to time only by way of unanimous consent can this Chamber go beyond some of those rulings.
In this instance the government is in a situation, quite frankly, where conceivably it would like to support one of the amendments and perhaps not the other. If they were separated we would have the opportunity to address that specific individual amendment. We are asking the consent of the House, if it would allow the debate to continue with those two items separated and dealt with individually.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House in agreement with the suggestions from the whip of the government?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 11 a.m., we will now proceed to statements by members.

Statements By Members
Coal IndustryHon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, having lost one battle when the U.K. switched to natural gas, the coal industry now brings its fear mongering to Canada. They invoke the idea of global cooling to throw the climate change debate off course. But informed scientists conclude that global warming is a problem and that we must act.
Burning coal is highly damaging to the environment and human health. The remedies proposed by the coal association are inspired by profound ignorance of the links between coal burning and damage to water, agriculture, forests, fish spawning grounds and human health.
To reach the goal of stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions by 2005, and 20% reductions by 2010, the answer lies not with coal but with improved energy efficiency and conservation, with technology that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and with greater use of natural gas.
Ekrem KolayMr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Madam Speaker, as I speak, Ekrem Kolay is wasting away outside Canada Place in Edmonton. He has been on a hunger strike for 15 days to bring this government's attention to the imprisonment of Leyla Zana, a mother of two and a celebrated former member of the Turkish parliament.
Leyla Zana was imprisoned for standing up for the wishes of her constituents, for speaking out against human rights violations in Turkey when very few others had the courage to do so.
Amnesty International, British parliamentarians, members of the U.S. Congress, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Alberta Federation of Labour, members of the provincial and federal NDP, and local Edmonton churches and businesses have all joined Ekrem Kolay in his campaign to free Leyla Zana.
Ekrem Kolay is waiting for just one more person to join his struggle before he promises to eat his first meal. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is now the only man who can decide whether my constituent eats or continues to slowly starve.
Havelock, OntarioMr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I speak today about one village in Canada, the village of Havelock, Ontario, home to 1,300 people.
This is a community which has faced up to difficult times with great success. This summer the village held its first “Rock `n Rail” festival to celebrate its heritage as a mining and railroad town. This event attracted thousands of visitors, including 4,000 who took the special train rides through eastern Peterborough county.
A few weeks later this same tiny community again hosted thousands, this time for the annual Havelock country music festival jamboree and trade show, which I described previously in this House. The jamboree is now one of the major celebrations of country music in eastern Canada.
The citizens of Havelock are an example to us all. Our thanks to them, especially those who worked so hard on these two events.
Pay EquityMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like once again to draw the attention of the President of the Treasury Board to the dissatisfaction of federal public servants regarding the settlement of the pay equity issue.
Revenue Canada has a major taxation centre in Jonquière. The employees of the centre have asked me to stress that they are upset about the government's delay in solving the issue. The Liberals were definitely more vocal when they formed the opposition.
I am asking the President of the Treasury Board to read each of the some 620 letters which I received and which I will send to him at the earliest opportunity.
All these employees question the $10 billion deficit reduction that the finance minister is bragging about. I join them in asking that the issue of pay equity be settled. It is high time these employees get their due.
Canada Career WeekMrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice of praise and support for Canada Career Week 1997. This annual event is a reminder to young people and their parents of the importance of preparing today for the careers of tomorrow.
Both the challenges and opportunities posed by the new knowledge based economy demand that extra efforts are made to equip Canadian youth with the skills and knowledge that they will need to succeed.
A top priority of the Government of Canada is to provide young people with the information and assistance they require to make informed career choices. The programs and projects sponsored under the government's youth employment strategy are helping hundreds of thousands of young Canadians achieve their employment goals.
This year during Canada Career Week, the Government of Canada in co-operation with community partners participated in a series of activities, from career fairs in communities across the country to the production of new career information products. These activities will help Canada's teenagers and young adults make a successful transition from school to work.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Miramichi.
Colonel Fred MoarMr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is Veterans Week. Veterans in comparing our Canadian veterans program to those of other countries report that we have one of the best programs in the world.
In my constituency office, a veteran of World War II, Fred Moar, counsels and advises veterans and their families. He has worked on a volunteer basis with three members of Parliament, Bud Jardine, Maurice Dionne and myself.
Fred Moar has served his country and our community well, first as a cadet; then as a militiaman, he went overseas with the North Shore regiment as a company sergeant major at the age of 21. Promoted as a young officer, he landed with A company on D-Day at St. Aubin sur Mer. Five days later he was the only surviving officer in the company. That August he was promoted to company commander. Later he was wounded in Holland and returned to his unit some three weeks later. He returned to Canada with the North Shore regiment in 1946.
Since then Colonel Moar has served as company commander, officer commanding—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.
Remembrance DayMr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, November 11 Canadians will mark a minute of silence for those who gave their lives for the freedom, democracy and peace we enjoy in this country today.
My father was one of those men. He was a navigator in the RCAF and never returned from the second world war. As a result, I grew up with only a photograph and the stories and memories passed on by my mother to tell me what a wonderful man my father was.
Many of us can only imagine what it was like for those men like my father. Their sacrifice was so great and so meaningful we must never forget the contributions made during the wars. No words can convey that to anyone.
Therefore as the House will not be sitting on Remembrance Day, I ask that we remember November 11 is not a holiday. It is a day to remember those who fought and died for this wonderful country.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next Tuesday Canadians across the nation will honour the brave men and women who have given their lives in the world wars, the Korean war and in international peacekeeping efforts.
They are our heroes and have left us a legacy we can be proud of. So it is right that we bow our heads on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month to commemorate this ultimate sacrifice.
All across Canada we stop, we remember. In my riding of Vaughan—King—Aurora there will be parades, wreath laying ceremonies and a moment of silence.
I know that I will use that moment to reflect on the progress we have made as a nation and as a society.
Freedom and democracy, this is what Canadians fought for, died for and that is what we must never forget.
EnvironmentMr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, global climate change presents one of the most significant challenges the world has ever faced. Reducing greenhouse gases will take a concerted and co-operative effort by the world's nations when they meet next month in Kyoto, Japan to reach an agreement to solve this problem.
Our government is consulting with many stakeholders in advance of the Kyoto summit so that Canada makes a solid, balanced and positive contribution through realistic and attainable goals on greenhouse gas emissions.
While the issue of global climate change is a challenging one, it also presents a number of important opportunities for Canadian companies and know-how.
Canada has long been a leader in the development and export of environmentally sound technology. The worldwide effort to reduce greenhouse gases will result in a growing foreign market for Canadian expertise abroad and the creation of jobs at home.
As chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations, I look forward to studying ways of assisting Canadian companies and workers to benefit fully from the opportunity this challenge presents.
Canada will be a full and co-operative participant in the worldwide drive to control the emission of greenhouse gases. Future generations deserve our best efforts.
Member For BourassaMr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness and bitterness that I take the floor today, following yesterday's comment by the member for Bourassa who, in a stement worthy of Howard Stern, said that 49.4% of Quebeckers were “colonized separatists acting like colonials”.
Unfortunately, this is not the first unfortunate slip of the tongue by the member for Bourassa. In 1995, he said he felt like restoring the deportation act and sending back to their country those who spit on the Canadian flag.
I respect respectable people. The Elvis Grattons who talk about the best country in the world and who tell separatists to go live in Cuba if they are not happy may be funny on television, but not in this House, particularly when they say “blessed are Quebeckers for they receive more than their share of UI benefits from the federal government”.
Pierre Falardeau may have created Elvis Gratton, but I sometimes think the Prime Minister recruited him in his party.
Women EntrepreneursMrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recently reviewed a copy of the Bank of Montreal study on the economic power of women-led firms in Canada entitled “Myths and Realities”. There is tremendous progress being made by women in our Canadian business community. Here are some of the facts.
Women now own or operate over 700,000 firms, a number which represents over 30% of all firms in Canada. The number of women-led firms is increasing at twice the national average. They are creating jobs at four times the national average. These firms employ 1.7 million Canadians and provide 200,000 more jobs than the largest 100 Canadian companies combined.
Women-led firms are having a significant impact upon our economy. I congratulate these entrepreneurs. I also congratulate the Minister for International Trade who will shortly be leading a delegation of female business people to Washington.
Human LifeMr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the events of the last few days have given me occasion to once again evaluate at a very deep level the value of human life.
You see, Mr. Speaker, my sister Marian was born with cerebral palsy, injured at birth because of errors made by medical staff. My parents accepted their responsibility for her and she became a very important part of our family. She has never learned to speak and has required total care all her life. But she laughs and sometimes she cries. She loves to sing along when my mother or I play hymns on the piano, although her only words are “da, da, da”.
Marian has added so much to our family, helping us not to become consumed with secular pursuits and keeping our focus on that which is truly important in life. Some would say that her life is not worthwhile, but I profoundly disagree.
Thank you, my dear sister for loving us and accepting our love for the last 52 years.
Tax AvoidanceBill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of the house to Project Loophole. Choices, a Winnipeg based coalition for social justice, is challenging in the Federal Court of Canada in Toronto the $2.2 billion family trust tax manoeuvre identified and criticized by the Auditor General of Canada. The case is to be heard later this month.
Choices is to be commended for pursuing this issue. Tax avoidance is one of the far too hidden dimensions of why the government finds itself without the revenues it needs. Yet this same government not only does not cite tax avoidance as a factor in its fiscal situation that needs to be dealt with, instead it actively encourages tax avoidance by sending departmental officials to act as resource persons at privately sponsored tax avoidance workshops on tax shelters, offshore havens, et cetera.
It is no surprise really. When we see the kinds of prices the Liberals are able to charge for their fund-raising dinners, we know that their real friends are folks with lots of taxes to be avoided.
The ordinary Canadian will be getting his or her CPP reduced and their public services—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
Manitoba Farm WomenMr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today with great pride to recognize the week of November 3 to 9 as Manitoba Farm Women's Week. Manitoba farm women are essential to the life and the economic stability of the farm, family and community.
I would like to especially mention that the 1997 Manitoba Farm Women's Conference was held this week in my city of Brandon, Manitoba. The conference entitled “Neighbours en route to 2000” featured sessions ranging from child care in rural Manitoba to getting online on the world wide web. There also were presentations on equality, career planning and money management, to mention a few.
It is time that we as Canadians recognize the monumental contribution women have made to our agricultural industry and applaud them.

Oral Question Period
EmploymentMr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last night 1,500 people paid $500 each to attend the prime minister's exclusive fund-raising dinner. I do not suppose many of them spend much time worrying about minor things like the Canada pension plan or unemployment.
However, for ordinary Canadians things just got a little rougher. The national unemployment rate climbed back up to 9.1%. There were 104,000 fewer Canadians working in October than in the month before that, which means 104,000 families are facing serious trouble.
Canadians see the golf clubs, the caviar and the champagne so where are the job, jobs, jobs?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are disappointed that employment fell slightly in October but it followed seven consecutive months of solid job growth. Since the beginning of the year 268,000 new jobs have been created, which is nearly double the number of jobs created over the same period in 1996.
Unemployment is down nearly a full point from where it was a year ago. Therefore I am confident in saying that if we continue to work to create more jobs we will be accomplishing this with the policies that have worked well so far.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I suppose hope springs eternal in the heart of a Liberal, but he probably wrote that answer some time last night between cocktails and caviar.
We do not think there is an excuse for these numbers. Our number one trading partner and competitor, the United States, just reported that its unemployment rate is now 4.7%, just half of what ours is. Across the border they are enjoying the lowest unemployment rate in 24 years.
Has it come to this? Is looking outside the country the only place that unemployed Canadians can expect to find work?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, let us talk about the headlines in the paper just this morning: “Dust off those resumés, the job market is heating up”.
Let us talk about the fact that Statistics Canada recently stated that the jobs are here and that the help wanted index has hit its highest level in almost seven years. The help wanted index is an indication of where those jobs and the employment level will be in the future.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that kind of answer sold pretty well last night at the prime minister's shindig. I bet it sounded good somewhere right around the Dom Perignon.
Ordinary Canadians, the kind of people the government seems to forget about, are now in the 85th consecutive month of high unemployment, seven solid years of unemployment above 9%. Is this the best the Liberals can offer unemployed people? Are Canadians really sentenced to 9% unemployment forever or just until the government is replaced?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat for the hon. member that 268,000 new jobs have been created since the beginning of this year, nearly doubling the number of jobs created over the same period.
In case the hon. member did not understand me the first time, the help wanted index is an indicator of where the employment numbers will be in the future. They have hit the highest level in seven years.
The prospects look very positive for the employment numbers. We will continue as a government to pursue the policies to ensure that employment is first and foremost in the numbers.
Canada Pension PlanDiane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister told the House “there will not be an increase in CPP premiums beyond 9.9%”. On the very same day the chief actuary of the Canada pension plan told the finance committee that there was no guarantee premiums would not rise beyond 9.9%.
Who are Canadians to believe, the finance minister or his chief actuary?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the federal government and the provinces have used prudent assumptions in arriving at a 9.9% premium. We have every confidence this rate will be stable, but we build in reviews every three years to carefully monitor the Canada pension plan. If further action is necessary it will be taken.
We want to protect future generations. We want to make sure they have a safe and secure pension at reasonable cost. This is our commitment and we will achieve it.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the chief actuary reminded the finance committee yesterday that assumptions can “easily be off track” and acknowledged that projections “have been wrong in the past”. Just yesterday we saw that within two months there was a change in projections of $41 billion in what would be in the CPP fund.
Why does the government not admit to Canadians that it does not have a clue how much its broken CPP pyramid scheme will cost us in the future?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, why does the Reform Party not admit that its alternative to the Canada pension plan is to submit present and future generations to the vagaries of the market?
Canadians do not want the Reform Bre-X alternative to the safe and secure Canada pension plan?
Child SupportMrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
We learn in this morning's issue of Le Soleil that an agreement between Ottawa and Quebec with respect to the proposed agreement between France and Quebec regarding the collection of support payments is apparently impossible. Quebec, however, is still ready to negotiate and has even shown its willingness to discuss the terms of the agreement that is bothering Ottawa.
With Quebec still prepared to negotiate with the federal government, will the minister admit that the statements from anonymous sources within his government may well derail the negotiation process?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no question of commenting on the so-called anonymous sources, but it is very good news that the Government of Quebec is ready to negotiate, because so are we.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure us that his government has not used this issue, which is too important for the 200 women and their children waiting for support payments, for its own political ends, and that it will not do so in future?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, this is a question the hon. member would do better to ask her own party.
Employment InsuranceMr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
After a first announcement in the budget speech and another during the election campaign, the government ought to soon be making an official announcement on the EI contribution rate that will be in effect next year.
Everyone now acknowledges that a substantial drop in the employment insurance contribution rate would stimulate job creation. For once, does the government intend—
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each year since we have been in government, we have regularly, taking into consideration the overall problem of public finances, tried to reduce the employment insurance contribution, and we have indeed reduced it regularly. And it is clearly the intention of the government to look at it, each time it is financially feasible.
Maurice Dumas: Mr. Speaker, over the past four years the government has managed to wrest $19 billion from the unemployed and the employed, by pocketing the annual surpluses from the fund in order to improve the deficit figures.
When will the minister put an end to this scandalous misappropriation of public funds?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I do not share the opinions of my hon. colleague in the opposition.
It is very clear, where employment insurance is concerned, that we have carried out an in depth reform in order to help those people in this country who are looking for work. Looking at the results over the years, one can say that the outcome has been satisfactory, even though we would like to see a marked improvement.
It is therefore very clear that, as soon as we can do so, we will decrease contributions still further.
EmploymentBill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 24,000 more Canadians are out of work since September. Twenty-four thousand more families are wondering how they will pay for their groceries, how they will pay their rent and how they will get through Christmas.
When will the government admit that it is not getting things right, that unemployment is a continuing problem which its policies are not addressing, and that it needs to do something different? Will the government please explain why we have had a continuous 9% rate of unemployment for 85 months now?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, once again I point out that 268,000 new jobs have been created.
There is no doubt that it is true employment fell slightly in October, but this followed seven consecutive months of solid job growth.
Month to month fluctuations in employment estimates are not unusual. We have to look at the long term trend in employment over longer periods.
In fact the policies of the government have been very effective in ensuring that those employment numbers have gone up. We will continue to ensure that the employment numbers improve. The government is committed to that.
Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would call 85 months a long term trend. The long term trend is that unemployment has been at 9% for 85 months. What we get from the government is: “ Manana , manana , manana . Good days are coming. Just let these policies work”.
These policies have been in place and they are not working. When will the government change its mind and stop taking advice from the C.D. Howe Institute?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada recently reported that the jobs are here. The help wanted index is going up. It is the highest it has been in seven years.
The help wanted index is the indicator of where the employment numbers will be in the future. The numbers will improve in the future. The help wanted index is up. It is up because of the policies of the government. We will continue to follow those policies and we will ensure that Canadians who want to work will have the opportunity to work because of the policies of the government.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government which is in denial on unemployment. It continues to spout numbers.
I do not think unemployed families today who are listening to this question period will be very impressed by the statistics. Rather, I would like to know why the government is not listening to the business community which repeatedly asks the government to reduce employment insurance premium rates so that we can create more jobs. Why does it not act on this basic, simple recommendation which would allow more Canadians to get back into the labour market?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the question of the leader of the Conservative Party is amazing since the unemployment insurance rates reached record highs when he was in government. Furthermore, we have been steadily bringing down those rates since the record highs of the Conservative government. It is our intention to continue to do so.
Speaking of the private sector, the Bank of Montreal said that this year's job growth, which is expected to total 376,000 by year end, will continue through 1998, with a further—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.
Jean Charest: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the Deputy Prime Minister's answer is exactly what is wrong with the government.
When will the government grow up and stop blaming others for the unemployment situation? When will it stop saying that the dog ate its homework? When will it stop gouging Canadians by increasing EI premiums, as well as by increasing premiums for CPP? When will it give Canadians a break and put the money back into their pockets and allow jobs to be created in this economy?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party should not use question period to give Canadians watching on TV a totally inaccurate impression of the facts.
We have not been raising unemployment insurance premiums. We have been reducing them. It was the Conservative government of which he was a part that let them go to record levels. I have to admire his nerve to try to change the reality and facts of what happened.
We have been bringing them down. We will continue to do so. We have been creating jobs. We will continue to do so. We will be repairing the mess made of the economy by the leader of the Conservative Party and his government. No wonder they were destroyed.
Krever InquiryMr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on November 21 Judge Krever will finally make his report to the Canadian public on the tainted blood scandal and we will finally know the depth of the bungling that went on with the federal government.
My question for the government today is will it follow every single recommendation that Judge Krever presents for Canadians?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is looking forward to the report of Judge Krever.
We have recognized that this is a piece of work that has been expansive, that will direct us with a very important initiative. I know the Minister of Health will welcome that report and act on it as he can.
Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, those are very reassuring words.
Judy C., a patient who was infected with hepatitis C when she had a simple tooth extraction, wrote to me and said this government blocked Krever in court, withheld very important documents. She is not encourage at all with the record of this government on Krever.
Her question is why would anybody trust the government on this issue when it looks like it is just trying to dress up an old skeleton with new clothes in its brand new interim policy on blood?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is presuming response.
What I have indicated and what the hon. Minister of Health has continued to indicate is that he is welcoming the report from Justice Krever, that we will review it in its entirety and we will make an appropriate response when we receive the report.
ImmigrationMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
There is an agreement between the federal government and the Government of Quebec that permits Quebec to provide most services to immigrants newly arrived in Quebec.
How does the minister explain the fact that charges Quebec immigrants have to pay are the same as in other provinces?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve must surely know that, despite the agreement with Quebec, which is responsible for selecting its immigrants, the Government of Canada remains responsible for their admissibility and must therefore ensure they are healthy and represent no threat. So it incurs costs in the admission of immigrants going to Quebec too.
That said, should my colleague propose that we review the matter in the context of the Canada-Quebec agreement, I am prepared to do so.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, when does the minister intend to adjust the charges to reflect only the services provided by her department and nothing else?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve to be requesting the reopening of the Canada-Quebec agreement so we could consider the matter. I am quite prepared to do so.
The EnvironmentMr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the countdown to Kyoto is on. The Liberals are going to Japan in about 23 days and we still do not even know what the Canadian position will be.
What is so incredible here is the Liberal government has agreed to bind us to a contract, yet Canadians do not know the terms of the contract or what the impact will be.
Why does Canada have the only government that is going to Kyoto without a plan and without knowing how much it is going to cost us?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Reform has been exhibiting a severe weather fluctuation in this House. On the one hand it is demanding that we consult with the provinces and stakeholders, and on the other hand it is demanding that we stop this consultation.
The minister and her hon. colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, are going to be meeting with their provincial counterparts and they will be discussing this very important issue, just as Reform has suggested.
Eric C. Lowther: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion. What the Reform Party is demanding is what Canadians are demanding.
I have received in my office literally hundreds of signatures on petitions demanding the Liberal government not sign a legally binding treaty in Kyoto until the public has been given a chance to review the costs and impacts of such a deal.
Instead of respecting the wishes of ordinary Canadians this government is forcing a top down agenda. Canadians want real solutions to the environment, not new taxes.
Will this government publicly put forward solid solutions before signing secret contracts in Kyoto?
Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, the only one who has been talking about taxes is the Reform environment critic and he has been jailed for a week in the Reform bingo hall.
Dairy IndustryMs. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The World Trade Organization hearings on the Canada—United States dispute on the pricing of export milk are scheduled to open on November 19.
Following his October 31 meeting with representatives from the dairy industry, can the minister assure us that every effort will be made to support the dairy industry in this major dispute?
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.
I want to assure the hon. member that we, as a federal government, will respect all our trade obligations. We think our dairy pricing policy and the tariff rate quotas for fluid milk do comply with all our trade obligations.
I assure the hon. member we will defend our policies before any trade panel.
Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary concerns the importation of oil, butter and sugar mixtures.
In light of the loss of income experienced by our producers and seeing that time is of the essence, does the minister intend to do everything he can and quickly to get his colleagues to act on this issue?
John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member this is a matter that concerns the federal government and the minister of agriculture. In fact, the minister met with dairy farmers on this very issue just last week.
It is a difficult situation but I can assure the hon. member that when we deal with it we will take into account the various issues involved. We are also speaking with the other departments of government, namely revenue and finance. These departments are also involved in this issue.
InfrastructureMr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it seems that the political minister for B.C. has been funnelling quite a bit of infrastructure money into his own riding. In fact, the riding of Victoria has received double the per capita allotment for approved projects.
Is the minister funnelling money into his own riding to buy votes or is he punishing the rest of the region for voting Reform?
The Speaker: The question is out of order. The second question.
Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, the minister has approved bike paths and buses in his riding and is denying basic—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Grant McNally: How many Liberal organizers does a region need in order to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Longueuil.
Pay EquityMs. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The Bloc Quebecois is pleased to learn that the minister has finally decided to go back to the negotiating table with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, to settle the issue of pay equity.
Can the minister tell this House whether the Minister of Finance gave him the necessary leeway to finally bring this issue to its conclusion?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois member should not interpret the facts so loosely, because the Treasury Board has always been willing to negotiate.
In April, we indicated that we were prepared to put $1 billion on the table. We added $300 million in mid-August to arrive at an amount that must be discussed or negotiated with the union.
The hon. member should use her influence on the unions and ask them to negotiate now.
Small BusinessMr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue.
While the entrepreneurial spirit is alive an well in my own riding of Nepean—Carleton, there is often frustration among small business owners about the complexity of information provided by the government.
I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue what steps are being taken by his department to provide comprehensive, easily understood information for small business.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Nepean—Carleton who has expressed tremendous interest in small business.
This morning I introduced a new guide for Canadian small business to make sure that the information it gets is focused and clear.
I also congratulate the small business advisory committee which helped Revenue Canada put this together.
I assure Canadians that small business is very important. We all know it is small businesses that are generating the jobs in this economy. This, once again, is our program to create more jobs and help small business. We are committed to small business, to ensuring that we help—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey Central.
Canadian International Development AgencyMr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for three years CIDA has asked the government to establish an aid effectiveness advisory committee, a watchdog to monitor Canada's aid programs.
In response to my question last week, the government cites other priorities, including Liberal budget cuts to CIDA, as reasons not to establish a watchdog to hunt down questionable CIDA spending.
Why is the minister responsible for CIDA trying to hide behind the so-called other priorities? What is the government afraid of, the watchdog—
The Speaker: The hon. secretary of state.
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, CIDA has a very transparent open bidding system to award contracts.
If the hon. member has other information, we invite him to come forward. The CIDA open bidding system has been transparent and is well accepted by the business community.
Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, the hon. secretary does not know that. The fact is the committee has not yet been established so that the government may continue taking political advantage of CIDA.
CIDA has about 130 auditors from 49 countries trained by Canadian taxpayer dollars. CIDA has never used them except once. Guess what, the aid money was not used for the intended purpose.
CIDA's accountability, transparency, reputation and credibility are in question.
Why does the minister refuse to use those auditors who are trained in Canada?
Raymond Chan: Mr. Speaker, CIDA's budget has annually been audited by the auditor general. The bidding system has been open and transparent.
This kind of reference only hurts our ability to help third world countries.
Canada Pension PlanHon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the deputy prime minister.
Yesterday the prime minister characterized the CPP fight as between those with a social conscience and social Darwinists, who he said believe in the survival of the fattest.
It is ironic that the prime minister made those statements yesterday in Toronto at a $500 a plate dinner to fat cat Liberals.
How can the government pretend to believe in a social conscience when the brunt of the premium hikes and the cutback in benefits under CPP will fall hardest on those with low income, elderly women and those with disabilities? How can he say that?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, we reject the premise of the hon. member's question.
Our reforms of the Canada pension plan, which have been worked out in co-operation with eight of the provinces, are designed to help middle and lower income Canadians. They are designed to respect the needs of women and people with families.
We want to have a safe and secure pension plan for all Canadians and especially those of lower and medium income. We reject the approach of the Reform Party which wants to destroy that system.
It is about time the NDP joins with us in what we are trying to do to help ordinary Canadians.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, give me a break. The Deputy Prime Minister has gone to too many of those fat cat $500 dinners.
The only time the government's changes look good is in comparison to the Reform Party, which wants to abolish the CPP.
Why has this government not done an impact study on those changes and the effect of those changes on the income of future seniors, particularly women? No impact study has every been done. Why has it not been done and why will it not be done now and tabled before this house?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the reforms to the Canada pension plan arose not only through consultations with the provinces, but consultations with all sorts of stakeholder groups. Therefore, the concerns of my hon. friend have been taken into account. These are matters that could be considered further in parliamentary hearings and parliamentary debate.
However, the issues raised by my hon. friend are very much on the mind of the government. We believe they have been taken into account. The reforms we are putting forward to the Canada pension plan are to ensure the safety of the pensions for all Canadians, particularly lower and middle income Canadians and groups such as women, handicapped and needy people across the country.
Why will the NDP not realize this and join with us to make sure that these reforms go through to protect the plan for future generations?
The EnvironmentMs. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, this week the Prime Minister destroyed the last remaining Canadian land mine, but a similar problem still exists in my riding of Shefford.
For a number of years now, pieces of shells and rockets from World War II appear when the snow melts. Over a year ago, an active pyrotechnic device was discovered, but for reasons unknown, there was no cleanup and the issue has still not been resolved.
Can we hope that the Prime Minister will attach the same importance to ridding Canada of such devices as he does to mineclearing in the rest of the world?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that, yes, areas of Canada that have been used for testing or training purposes are of concern. There are quite a number of defence sites across the country that need cleaning up, not only of explosives and lethal devices, but also for environmental reasons. The government has a major program under way to do that.
There is, of course, concern that this clean-up will involve substantial amounts of time as well as money. But on behalf of the Minister of National Defence, I would be delighted to examine the particular case in the member's riding.
Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that the government is committed to looking at this problem, but I think more than that is required.
Before the Ottawa treaty is signed in December, should we not bring in legislation to eliminate devices left over from World War II by our army and its subcontractors? If we do not do it for the environment, could we not do it for the safety of our children, before there is a serious accident?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the sentiment of the hon. member. It is a little difficult, however, to legislate simply by a decision of this Parliament to somehow make good a problem that has existed since the second world war and is a physical problem in or on the surface of the ground.
I can promise the member that the concern she has expressed, which is particularly important in areas where children may get through a fence or wall into an area where there is such a dangerous situation, is a major concern. I am sure the opinions expressed by the hon. member are shared by every member of the House.
InfrastructureMs. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has placed important and appropriate emphasis on renewing Canada's infrastructure.
Could the President of the Treasury Board tell us today how he has allowed Canadian municipalities to fund progressive infrastructure to benefit Canadians equitably?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the federal government is providing funding for nine metro Toronto daycare facilities under the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program.
In collaboration with our partners in this program, we will be providing a $1 million contribution which will help to respond to the needs of all the stakeholders. The federal government is meeting its commitment to metro Toronto and to Canada's children.
SenateRahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, Canadians believe in making our political institutions more democratic. Albertans have led the way by electing their first senator in 1989.
With all provincial parties in favour of electing a senator from Alberta, will the Prime Minister listen to the people of Alberta and their request for Senate elections?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, we certainly are sensitive to the views of the people of Alberta, as well as those of every part of the country. But we have to respect the Constitution as it is, which says that senators are appointed by the Government of Canada. Certainly we intend to respect the law while taking into account the views of people of every part of this country.
Canada Labour CodeMr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour.
In his reform of the Canada Labour Code, the minister insists on maintaining the possibility of using strike breakers.
Why is the minister so intend on allowing this, since he knows full well, as the Quebec experience has demonstrated, that prohibiting scabs tends to make labour relations more civilized?
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-19 was tabled yesterday in the House of Commons. I would like to quote today Canadian Labour Congress vice-president Nancy Riche. “CLC gives thumbs up to Bill C-19”.
We are going to address many problems in this bill.
Crisis CentresMs. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
Every 17 minutes a sexual assault is committed somewhere in Canada. One in four women will be sexually abused at some point in her life. There is a need like never before for safe houses, shelters and rape crisis centres. Why then is the government quibbling over a million dollar expenditure for such centres?
Will the government assure Canadian women today that, as a very minimum, the million dollars a year for five years for crisis centres as promised by the former Minister of Justice will be allocated immediately?
Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board is now overlooking the funding for the government's family violence initiative.
The CASAC proposal which is I think is the proposal to which the hon. member is referring requires more than two-thirds of the funds that the department expects to receive from Treasury Board.
At the moment, we have 20 proposals for $1.2 million, including one from the group of aboriginal women who want to establish a program to build life skills of women. We are in the process of studying these proposals.
AgricultureMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia farmers have been devastated twice this year: first by the worst drought in 100 years resulting in a loss of up to 50% of forage and grain crops and second, by the callousness of the minister of agriculture toward this critical event. Farmers are seeking emergency relief.
Will the Prime Minister intervene now and save farming in Nova Scotia?
John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question.
I will take his question as notice and when I have my first opportunity to speak to the minister, I will apprise him of his concern. I am sure he will get an answer back from the minister of agriculture.
Industrial ResearchMr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the last election, the government promised to increase funding to the Council for Assistance to Industrial Research sponsored by the National Research Council.
Could the Secretary of State for Science and Technology outline the reasons for such a commitment, which I personally consider positive and necessary?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development) (Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this industrial research assistance program, which is managed by the National Research Council, is an excellent government program, and everyone agrees with that. Every year in Canada, it creates up to 10,000 full time, high quality jobs.
This program provides assistance to 10,000 businesses. Our consultants, the people who provide this information, come from every region in the country. They come from 140 organizations across Canada. This program is especially designed for young people.
JusticeMr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Justice stated that the House of Commons is not the place to discuss issues such as euthanasia and mercy killings.
Canadians were pretty shocked by that comment. If this is not the place to debate issues such as euthanasia and mercy killing, then where is the place to discuss such issues?
Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I did not see the quote to which the member referred, but there are issues before this House on mercy killing, on euthanasia, and they will be debated, as is being done with the private members' motion.
Pay EquityCaroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, in light of the response we have just got from the President of Treasury Board on pay equity, I will have another try at it.
Can the minister be more serious and tell me whether, yes or no, his colleague in finance has given him more than $1.3 billion to negotiate with?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, the government considers pay equity an extremely important problem, and we wish to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.
We have already allocated $1.3 billion for settlement of this question. We have indicated that we want a response as quickly as possible, and I would again encourage my hon. colleague to put pressure on the union so that it will finally find a response that suits the requirements of our employees.
Veterans AffairsMr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. He will be aware that in the late thirties hundreds of Canadians volunteered to go to Spain to fight against fascism prior to the second world war.
The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that there is only a handful of survivors of the Mackenzie-Papineau brigade living today. He will also know that of 54 countries, 52 have recognized them as veterans and they are receiving the benefits of veterans.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister indicate today whether the government, on the eve of Remembrance Day, is at least considering recognizing this handful of veterans from the Spanish civil war who are still alive today and offering them veteran status?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I would be happy to take the matter under advisement, together with my colleague, the Minister of Veteran's Affairs, and get back to my hon. friend when I have further information on this important suggestion.
FisheriesGerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the divestiture of the Nova Scotia salmon hatcheries has been stated by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as being for the betterment of the public fishery in Nova Scotia.
Does the minister feel there will be a public fishery in 1998 on previously stocked rivers in Nova Scotia? If not, does this change the impetus of the divestiture process?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It allows me to point out that this summer the Atlantic salmon returns were possibly one-third of what was expected. This was the result of at-sea conditions. The escapement from the rivers, the escapement from hatcheries, were as good for this year as in previous years from the fish that returned.
However at-sea conditions resulted in a very substantial reduction. It is a major matter of concern for the government. However, there are many factors involved, not simply hatcheries, and I will be happy to discuss them with the member more fully when I have more than 35 seconds, which is what the Speaker allows me at question period.
Land ClaimsMr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks there have been important land claims negotiations between the federal government, the Labrador Inuit Association and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Could the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development please update the House on the status of these negotiations?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member points out, over the last two weeks senior officials from the Labrador Inuit Association, from the province of Newfoundland and from the federal government have completed pressure cooker negotiations. These have resulted in the initialling of a framework that has been accepted by the principals. I trust they will lead us to an agreement in principle on this very important land claim and self-government agreement.
I congratulate all the parties involved because it was difficult. I commit the government to a quick return to the table to finish that agreement in principle as soon as possible.
Health CareMr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in an appearance before the finance committee a very credible witness said: “Continuing cuts to health care across the country have been dramatic and Canadians are paying the price. The medicare patchwork is becoming threadbare”. Canadians queuing up for operations and laid off nurses agree with her.
If the government will not listen to waiting patients, if it will not listen to laid-off nurses, if it will not listen to the Reform Party, will it at least listen to one of its own, the wife of a deputy prime minister, and move quickly to restore much needed health transfer payments?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, as part of the election platform presented by what is now this government, we identified the important need to modernize health care. We identified the need for home care and pharmacare. We have identified a number of strategies to which the hon. Minister of Health is responding.
It is my clear partnership with him to identify that the biggest input was to restore funding to $12.5 billion as was requested by the National Forum on Health.
The Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. government whip, or, excuse me, Reform whip.
Chuck Strahl: One day, perhaps, Mr. Speaker.
Points Of OrderChuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding what happened in question period today, specifically during the questions by the member for Dewdney—Alouette.
You ruled his initial question out of order, I assume because you felt it was not within the jurisdiction of the minister to which the question was directed. However, in the supplementary when the member started to talk about the infrastructure program and some of the problems with the infrastructure program in British Columbia, before he had directed his question in this case to the minister in charge of that infrastructure program you rose and cut him off and ruled it out of order again.
It is interesting that the member for Burlington also asked a question about infrastructure. Why is it okay—
The Speaker: During the course of question period usually when certain words are used I do not know where the member is going a lot of the time. It seemed to me he was going down the same path as the other so I made my decision and my decision stands.

Routine Proceedings
Order In Council AppointmentsPeter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.
Committees Of The HouseMr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the Report of the Special Joint Committee to amend Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, concerning the Quebec School System.
As the member for Brome—Missisquoi, I simply want to say that the linguistic school boards Quebec is seeking to establish are similar to what we have had for about 15 years in my riding of Brome-Missisquoi, and I must say that the two linguistic communities in my riding live in perfect harmony.
We heard many stakeholders, and our joint committee conducted a high level debate. As a Quebecker, I am proud to note that the Quebec government just took an important step by requesting this amendment in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1982.
I would like to thank the co-chair of the committee, Senator Lucie Pépin, as well as all the hon. members and senators who sat on the joint committee and the staff that worked hard to prepare this report.
In conclusion, I would like to read the conclusion of the joint committee's report:
We recommend that the two houses of Parliament adopt the resolution to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as tabled in the House of Commons on October 1, 1997, and in the Senate on October 9, 1997.
Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that the caucus of the Reform Party strongly believes that education is exclusively under provincial jurisdiction and that it is essential that this be fully respected.
However, we might add that the proposed amendment does not address minority language educational rights or the establishment of linguistic school boards. What is at stake here is the denominational rights protected by section 93 of the Constitution.
Amendments to the Constitution should never be passed without due consideration or in haste. We believe that before any constitutional amendment is passed, Parliament must make sure there is democratic consent, that the amendment respects the rule of law and that it is in the national interest.
If it adversely affects enshrined minority rights, Parliament must be especially careful that the democratic consent includes indisputable agreement on the part of the minority. We have come to the conclusion that the motion does not meet these requirements.
First, the Reform Party would rather see a provincial referendum before Parliament considers any amendment under section 93. This referendum should be on a clear question and the rules of the process should be fair. Such a referendun would have shown us how extensive public support is.
Second, we believe it is essential that the people of Canada, ordinary citizens, be consulted when major changes are contemplated, but the Quebec government has chosen not to hold any referendum on this issue. There have been neither public hearings on this proposed amendment to section 93 nor a free vote in the National Assembly.
Third, this committee should ensure that what it proposes meets the second requirement: respecting the rule of law. Is the appropriate amending formula being used? Some have questioned the appropriateness of the bilateral process. The proposal was sanctioned by the Government of Canada and by legal experts. Most witnesses we have heard therefore took it for granted.
In fact, we should not expect this committee to settle the issue in haste—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. member for Malpeque has the floor, on a point of order.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the member reading the report or tabling the report? I think he is taking too long to table the report. He seems to be reading it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. parliamentary secretary is correct. By custom the response should not be any longer than the initial tabling.
The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has requested unanimous consent of the House to speak to the tabling of this report with a few short words. Does the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve have the unanimous consent of the House to speak to this report?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their consent. I also thank the government, the member for Brome—Missisquoi, and our Senate colleague, who made it possible for us to work in a calm atmosphere culminating in almost complete unanimity. I wish to emphasize that the Bloc Quebecois is very much in favour of and very pleased with the contents of the report tabled.
We hope to be able to follow up as quickly as possible on the vote to be held in the House. Once again, we have the feeling we are favourably representing the will of the National Assembly and think that this is a very positive occasion for all parliamentarians.
Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Industry.
In accordance with its order of reference of October 24, 1997, the committee has considered Bill C-11, an act respecting the imposition of duties and customs.
Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Industry.
In accordance with its order of reference of October 29, 1997 the committee has considered Bill C-10, an act to implement a convention between Canada and Sweden, a convention between Canada and various other countries.
The purpose of this bill is to avoid double taxation and to prevent fiscal evasion with respect to income tax. We have agreed to report it without amendment.
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate membership of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 10th report later this day.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food relating to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Criminal CodeReed Elley: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-277, an act to declare a referendum on the restoration of the death penalty as a sentencing option and to amend the Referendum Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to introduce a bill calling for a binding national referendum on the reinstatement of capital punishment as a sentencing option for those convicted of first degree murder.
In doing so I thank my colleague, the member for Dewdney—Alouette, for seconding the bill and all other members who have jointly seconded the bill. The bill represents Reform Party policy on the issue and allows Canadians to decide this matter for themselves. Indeed for too long, in fact forever, Canadians have been shut out of this debate.
Critics will try to misrepresent this initiative by saying the bill is about reinstatement of the death penalty when it is clearly not. The bill is about having a referendum on the matter and it is from that perspective I hope members of the House will engage in debate on the matter.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Garry Breitkreuz: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-278, an act to provide for the expiry of gun control legislation that has not proven effective within five years of coming into force.

Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing my firearms law sunset act. I would like to thank the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for seconding the bill.
The Minister of Justice tabled 62 pages of firearms regulations last week and they suffer the same problem as the bill that authorized them. No one knows if this bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo and hundreds of millions of tax dollars will improve public safety, reduce the criminal use of firearms or save lives. Nor can anyone in this government tell law-abiding gun owners or taxpayers what it will do if it does not improve public safety.
The firearms law sunset act solves this uncertainty for gun owners and—
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the standing orders say that members introducing private members' bills describe the bill. They do not give a speech about it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. parliamentary secretary is quite correct. The introduction of a private member's bill may not enter into the realm of debate.
Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I will describe the bill.
My sunset law would require the automatic repeal of any gun control measure five years after it is implemented, unless it can pass a public safety test administered by the Auditor General of Canada which proves that the measure is cost effective and achieves its stated objective.
I believe all laws in this House must be cost effective and achieve their stated goal.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Observance Of Two Minutes Of Silence On Remembrance Day ActMr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-279, an act to promote the observance of two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day.

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple bill which is designed to formalize a custom which unfortunately is on the wane in Canada. It would invite the people of Canada to observe two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day in their places of work, in schools, in any possible way.
It is a bill that is designed on a similar piece of legislation which was recently passed in the Ontario legislature and designed on a motion that passed the Westminister parliament a couple of years ago.
It would not require anything of the Canadian people but simply to call their attention to the importance respecting this longstanding tradition of observing these moments of silence in respect of our war dead.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Committees Of The HousePeter Adams: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the following member be added to the list of associate members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Don Boudria.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsJoe McGuire: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Prince Edward Island who are concerned about the explicit nudity in public places which is becoming quite frequent. There are laws in Canada to protect children against this form of nudity in all media, but currently there are no laws protecting children in public places.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation to amend the Criminal Code, specifically sections 173 and 174, the indecent act and public nudity provisions, to clearly state that a woman exposing her breasts in a public place is an indecent act.
Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the House calling for the elimination of Bill C-8 and any other offending legislation that unduly regulates the use of herbal supplements.
Conservative estimates show that over six million Canadians rely on herbal supplements. These people do not want their health care choices limited and they do not want to see the cost of these products increase as the result of unnecessary costly government regulations.
I applaud the Minister of Health on his recent decision to seek advice from a committee for amendments to the Food and Drugs Act that would affect these products.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three brief petitions to present today.
The first one has to do with the family. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society. They also point out that the Income Tax Act does not take into account the cost of raising children in its provisions.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate this discrimination against families who choose to provide direct care in the home to preschool children.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with alcohol misuse.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems and particularly that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100% preventable by avoiding consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to mandate the labelling of alcoholic products to warn expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the final petition has to do with our everyday heroes on the front line, police officers and firefighters.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that our police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk on a daily basis and that the public mourns the loss when one of them loses their life in the line of duty.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to establish a public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of families of police officers, firefighters and other public safety officers who lose their lives in the line of duty.
Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops, I want to associate our views with that of the member for Mississauga South who has just presented three petitions. We would certainly go on record as endorsing those three petitions. Perhaps I can ask the same of my hon. friend.
The first petition I wish to present refers to the GST being applied to books. These few hundred petitioners from throughout British Columbia are urging the government to demonstrate support of education and literacy by eliminating the sales tax on reading materials. They also ask Parliament to zero rate books, magazines and newspapers under the GST. Also they say that as the provinces and Ottawa consider harmonizing their sales taxes, reading materials must be zero rated under the provincial sales taxes as well as the GST.
Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is a large one. This brings to a total of nearly 15,000 names from the greater Kamloops area that are on record as asking the government to remove section 745 of the Criminal Code which they say allows murderers to apply for a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment notwithstanding having been tried, convicted and sentenced in a court of law.
I agree with their sentiment. They are asking Parliament to simply eliminate section 745.
Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, on another matter, petitioners from Kamloops and Clearwater, British Columbia outline a large list of reasons why the present tax system needs to be changed. I will not go into the reasons because they are already clear on the public record. They are simply calling upon the Government of Canada to consider introducing major tax reform and re-examining the recommendations made, I believe it was in the sixties, by the Carter commission on tax reform.
Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, finally on the matter of euthanasia, the petitioners primarily under the leadership of Ursula Bond from Clearwater, British Columbia are simply asking Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously, and that Parliament make no change in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to rise in the House today to present a petition on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and other regions of British Columbia.
The petition concerns Yasmine Reddy, a Canadian citizen who was abducted from Canada by her mother, Nadia Reddy, on February 16, 1997 and remains a hostage trapped in Amman, Jordan.
This petition is signed by 83 persons and calls on the federal government to act to have Yasmine Reddy safely and promptly returned to Canada and to ask the King of Jordan to issue a royal decree to repatriate Yasmine Asha Christine Reddy back to Canada.
Questions On The Order PaperPeter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-16, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Interpretation Act (powers to arrest and enter dwellings), as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 3 and 5.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to revert to Motion No. 2.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On a point of order, the hon. chief government, the whip of the official opposition.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, all the speakers are having trouble with that today. It is prophetic.
I feel this matter can be given unanimous consent, but I want to rise to address it on two points.
The reason we are reverting to deal with this motion is that the government's process on how it has handled this whole bill and the amendments surrounding this bill along with the amendments to the bill itself has been so seriously flawed that, as it is trying to rush it through this House, mistakes were made earlier this day by people forcing a vote on this amendment. The government does not want an amendment because it wants it pushed through today and today it must go through. None of us on this side of the House want to hold that up.
However, what has happened is another example of what happens in this place when legislation is brought in at the last minute, when it is rushed through committee where there is no chance of bringing in amendments like this, when there is no chance to bring expert opinion to bear on amendments, when there is not an opportunity to hear all sides of it. That is what happens when this stuff is pushed through.
I said as much in committee. I want to repeat it here again today. This is a problem with the flawed process of last minute, last ditch, knife at your throat, let us get this thing passed or else attitude that the government brings on this legislation. It is wrong, wrong, wrong. I just want to point out that we are reverting to this motion because the process is so flawed.
I also want to caution the Speaker in accepting this motion. There have been discussions with all parties and we are in agreement to revert to this motion to deal with it.
However earlier today, five members at least stood in their place and demanded a recorded vote on this motion. The caution I have on that is what if those five members have now left the Chamber to do other duties and are not here to deal with the unanimous consent?
I just want to go on record to say that this cannot be construed as a precedent setting incident. It is only because the government House leader assures me that the members who stood on his side of the House and asked for this vote are in agreement with this and will not be coming back on the House and accusing anyone in here of somehow doing something inappropriate in the democratic process.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that it is absolutely clear that at any time in the future when five members stand to force a vote we do not reconsider that vote unless there is agreement by all parties and agreement by the five members who stood.
I hope on those two counts the government is paying attention, that the department is paying attention and that we will not be dealing with this sort of sausage making factory when we should be dealing with legislative debate in a serious manner.
Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say briefly that the point made by the Reform Party whip is a good one. I too very much regret that we have to do what we are doing.
This would be a bad precedent if it in any way were to be understood as a precedent. I think this needs to be understood as an aberration. I think the point is well made that one could certainly imagine a future circumstance in which the leadership of all parties, in fact all parties, might conspire to overturn the will of five members who might not have been acting in concert with their parties, causing a vote to be taken by standing and forcing a recorded division.
This should in no way be seen as a precedent in respect of any future circumstance. In the future we would have to have guarantees, as we have today, that the members who caused the vote to be taken were in agreement with the procedure we are now following.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm to the House that this is not considered by the government as being a precedent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we take the vote on unanimous consent, the Chair takes this very seriously and has duly noted all the comments made by all the members on both sides of the Chamber concerning this bill.
The Chair also recognizes that a precedent is not set when unanimous consent is requested. Any member of the House may deny unanimous consent and therefore a precedent is not set.
With regard to this bill, the House did give unanimous consent earlier to exceptionally deal with this legislation, to pass it at report and third reading stages today. Therefore the House has already expressed its desire to see this legislation proceed.
The Chair very clearly states that this is not and will not be considered as a precedent. The concerns of the hon. whip of the official opposition are noted.
Accordingly, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Carried.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion—
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is important for the House to know whether you are seeking consent to put the motion on whether to revert to the previous clause or whether you are adopting Motion No. 2 itself.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is a very wise clarification. It is to revert to the motion as put by the whip.
Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): So that we are absolutely clear, we are now dealing with Motion No. 2.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair is not certain what the Chair heard, so the Chair will repeat the request.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 2 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion defeated on division. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 4 and 6 defeated.
Debate is on Motion No. 3. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.
Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I will deal with Motions Nos. 3 and 5, and I do realize that they have been separated. You separated Motion No. 3 from Motion No. 5, with unanimous consent. There will be a separate vote on these motions.
Motions Nos. 3 and 5 are similar, but Motion No. 3 deals with the warrant for arrest. I realize that the member wants more flexibility and would like police officers to have more powers to serve a warrant for arrest. However, it should be remembered that with respect to the warrant for arrest itself, which is outlined on page 6 of the bill starting at line five, the police officers already know who the person involved is. This warrant for arrest applies to a known individual. We know his age, his address, his date of birth, his social insurance number, etc. Therefore with respect to the warrant for arrest that the member of the Conservative Party would like to broaden somewhat, I wish to say here that this is not necessary, since the police officers already have the information. So it is not necessary to give all those details. We will vote against Motion No. 3.
As for Motion No. 5, and I will speak to it now so that I will not have to rise later, on the warrant to enter a dwelling-house, we agree with this and we will vote for this amendment because in this case, this is useful and it gives police officers more powers to obtain a warrant to enter a dwelling-house without necessarily knowing the name of the individual who is there, as long as they have a description. For example, he is tall, he is dressed in a blue suit, he has brown hair, he has brown eyes, he belongs to the Bloc perhaps. In this way we have more information and we can enter a dwelling-house without necessarily having the name of the individual, his date of birth and other similar information.
Therefore, for these reasons, we will vote against Motion No. 3 but we will vote for Motion No. 5.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on Motion No. 3.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 3 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion defeated on division.
Resuming debate on Motion No. 5.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe that the rules of the debate were that the vote on Motion No. 3 was to apply to Motion No. 5, unless that has been rescinded while I was not paying attention.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: It was.
Ken Epp: It was? Thank you. I withdraw my question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There was consent to split the vote and the point of order is therefore withdrawn.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise again with respect to this amendment as it pertains to a revision or an adaptation to an amendment contained in Bill C-16. This refers specifically to form 7.1 as it exists currently in the Criminal Code. The amendment is aimed specifically at allowing a police officer in the form of the warrant to include a description as it pertains to a person the police are seeking.
That person may be found within a dwelling House and may be unknown in terms of the actual name of the person sought by the police. The acceptance of this amendment and including this in the form would allow the police to give a description to a justice of the peace that is acceptable to the justice of the peace to the extent that they might then fill out the warrant. The police could therefore go to the dwelling house named in the warrant and make proper arrest.
There is still judicial discretion. The justice of the peace will always have the discretion to refuse the police if that description is unnecessary. So there are sufficient safeguards in place.
I do not want to speak at length. The proposed amendment is very straightforward. Mr. Speaker, I believe you will unanimous consent with respect to this amendment.
Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I want to put on the record, as was stated earlier, that we do support this amendment. We believe the amendment as stated is already permitted under section 529.1, but the hon. member's motion would provide more clarification.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair, not hearing any nays, declares the motion carried.
(Motion No. 5 agreed to)
Marcel Massé: 
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Marcel Massé: 
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Debate.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of clarification. Are we presently engaging in debate on third reading?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This bill may not go down in the annals of history as one to be used as a case history on how to handle a bill. It may, as a matter of fact, go down in history as how not to handle a bill.
I believe, with unanimous consent, if anybody wishes to revert to the bill it is possible, but the bill has been carried at third reading.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you might find unanimous consent to see the clock as being 1.30. Possibly, to assist the member or members who might be participating in private members' hour, the House would adjourn to the call of the Chair. I think we should begin by seeing consent to see the clock as being 1.30 p.m.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, we just want to make sure that we were voting on the motion for third reading.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yes.
Suzanne Tremblay: We were. Very well.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent to see the clock as 1.30 p.m. so we may proceed with Private Members' Business?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being l.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Private Members' Business
Distinct SocietyReed Elley: moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support equality among the provinces and Canadians in general by ensuring that no province be recognized as a distinct society within the Constitution of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to begin debate on the private member's motion before the House.
In light of the recent Calgary declaration the merit of the motion should be self-evident to all Canadians. Given the desire of traditional parties to cling to the concept of distinct society, I am under no illusions about the criticism they will offer today.
To start, there will be those who will criticize the initiative before us as being anti-Quebec. To those who feel this way I respond in advance that like the Calgary declaration the motion is not anti-anything. It is in essence pro Canadian. It is crafted with the desire to create a new Canada where everyone is proud to be a Canadian.
I say this with a great deal of confidence. The motion before us is pro Canadian in the sense that it recognizes a fundamental principle held in the hearts of all Canadians, namely that we are all equal.
The motion before us is about advancing the principle of equality among all Canadians and entrenching the paramount importance of individual rights. The protection of individual rights is also significant. One of the major faults in the Meech and Charlottetown accords was that they sought to constitutionally entrench a collective right. In doing so, there would have existed within the Canadian constitution the potential that individual rights could be made subservient to the collective right of a distinct society.
This argument was based on the widely held and correct perception among Canadians that recognition of Quebec as a distinct society would confer some collective right on the peoples of that province not conferred on the others. Therein lay the problem and the dilemma faced by constitutional framers and politicians, the same people who tried on numerous occasions to ram distinct society through with little or no regard for the real feelings of Canadians.
What was the response from the traditional party leaders at the federal and provincial levels? They resorted to labelling anyone who opposed the distinct society initiative as unpatriotic. They also played on the fears of Canadians by saying that the country would fall apart without such an amendment to the constitution. The country is still here.
Worse still, there was a deliberate attempt to mislead Canadians about what distinct society really meant. At the time we had the former prime minister of the last place party telling Canadians outside Quebec that distinct society was nothing more than a symbolic recognition of that province's place in Confederation.
I want to briefly touch on that symbolic recognition. This is what distinguishes the Calgary declaration from Meech and Charlottetown. Meech and Charlottetown attempted to entrench distinct society as an interpretive clause which would give additional powers to Quebec. The Calgary declaration does nothing more than recognize what is a historical fact accepted by Reformers and Canadians in general, principally that the language and culture of Quebec make it unique but, and here is the key, this fact in no way takes away from the equality of Canadians or confers additional powers to Quebec.
That was the problem with Meech and Charlottetown. Both initiatives tried to craft this historical recognition into a constitutional power afforded only to Quebec.
All the while and within Quebec the former prime minister and the late Premier Bourassa were saying just that. To hear them tell it, the clause would be used to enhance that province's powers within federation.
The federal doublespeak and actions on distinct society would be quite funny if they were not so terribly sad for the future of the country.
I also want to deal with what I see is the potential harm in the collective right of distinct society ever becoming entrenched. Granted this will be speculative because thankfully the clause is not in the Constitution. That has more to do with the wisdom of Canadians than it does the foresight of traditional politicians who even now think entrenchment of distinct society will solve the unity problem.
In any event, the arguments concerning the potential harm of entrenching distinct society are speculative but they are not without a historical precedent to back them up.
I want to briefly discuss the precedent. The lessons and arguments in that instance will serve to highlight what I feel are the pitfalls where distinct society is concerned. Patriation of the Canadian Constitution was achieved to some degree because the federal government was able to secure an agreement with nine of the ten provinces. The federal government had acted unilaterally but the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that some provincial support was needed.
The impact of that court decision would figure prominently in the effort to settle on a text for the Constitution, but in the finished document that became the Constitution Act, 1982, there also was a clause known as the notwithstanding clause. This clause was part of the price the federal government had to pay for getting an agreement on the Constitution.
The rationale behind the notwithstanding clause was to place some kind of a constitutional check on the powers of the federal government. At the time some premiers believed this was needed to in part prevent legislation or new spending initiatives which might cross into areas of provincial jurisdiction. It was also believed that this clause would help in securing Quebec's signature on the Constitution.
Aside from the rationale and intentions behind the notwithstanding clause, good, bad or otherwise, there were those who saw the potential danger in having a constitution which could allow a province to disregard federal legislation or a ruling by the supreme court concerning the constitutionality of a provincial law.
This potential danger is significant because the arguments used to downplay the consequences at that time are the same ones used now with respect to distinct society. In this regard it is no small wonder then that Canadians feel successive governments have learned nothing from past constitutional experiences. They have little or no faith in the sincerity of politicians to do what is best or in their ability to deal with the national unity problem.
This is truly tragic. And as someone whose name escapes me at the moment once said, “Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat them.”
What were those dire consequences that some predicted would befall the notwithstanding clause? Canadians with enough foresight saw that a province might use the clause to override the charter of rights and that in so doing, the rights of individuals in that province could be damaged. That is exactly what did happen.
But we need not concern ourselves with the circumstances under which the use of that clause came about. We will visit that in due course. What is now relevant were the arguments used at that time to allay fears that the notwithstanding clause would ever be used by any province.
I think we remember them well. They are hauntingly familiar to those used by former and present governments seeking to mollify Canadians about the constitutional impact of the distinct society provision.
As I said, in response to a well-founded fear that some province might use the notwithstanding clause, the government of the day sought to minimize the chance of this ever happening. The political media and to a lesser extent, the academic elites, said “Oh, this will never happen. No province would ever use the notwithstanding clause. The political price of using it would be too great for any province. The court of public opinion in that province would stop a government from invoking the clause” and on and on it went.
Basically, the predictions were ignored and political leaders felt secure in their belief that the override provision would never, ever be used. But of course they were wrong.
Let us fast forward from 1982 to 1989 when the Government of Quebec invoked the notwithstanding clause. The province did this in response to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling which found Quebec's language law, bill 178, to be unconstitutional and violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I am not so much interested in why the notwithstanding clause was used. It is far more revealing to delve into parallels between the potential dangers it posed and those which by extension are inherent in the distinct society clause.
The politicians of the day had not been completely wrong about the effect of public opinion surrounding Quebec's use of the notwithstanding clause. The problem was that the court of public opinion did not change a thing and its full impact reaction was well after the fact.
Still, some negative fallout was incurred by the Quebec government on the issue. For as constitutional as their use of the notwithstanding clause had been, it did not sit well with people inside and outside of Quebec who expressed concern that the provincial government had effectively trampled on the rights of English speaking Quebeckers.
What was needed then was an amendment to the Canadian Constitution, one that would allow Quebec to side step the charter of rights in matters such as language and not put the province in the awkward position of having to use the notwithstanding clause in order to do it. Such an amendment must allow the province of Quebec to make laws similar to bill 178. However, it must also ensure that such laws could not be challenged as unconstitutional.
In short, the Canadian Constitution would have to be interpreted in such a way as to recognize the province's rights to make such laws.
From the very beginning of that notion is born the idea of distinct society, in effect, an amendment which would allow Quebec to override the Constitution by giving it the power to take whatever steps were necessary to preserve and promote Quebec as a distinct society.
Let us now examine the predictions and the potential dangers of how a distinct society clause might truly impact on the Constitution. Indeed, the alarm bells that went unheeded with respect to the notwithstanding clause are the same ones ringing again over distinct society today.
If, as governments in Quebec have demanded, the Canadian Constitution and charter of rights must be interpreted in a fashion that recognizes Quebec as a distinct society, what happens in a situation where individual rights, such as freedom of expression, conflict with this collective right based on culture and language?
Actually the question is rhetorical because we all know the answer. It is just that there are those who are loathe to admit it, or refuse to accept it, or do not want the rest of the country to really understand it.
Using the situation surrounding the supreme court's consideration of Quebec's bill 178, a distinct society clause would have allowed the supreme court to come back and say bill 178 was constitutional. The highest court in the land would have been able to say this. “The law must be considered in light of a clause which states that the Constitution shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the recognition that Quebec constitutes a distinct society”.
That is right. No messy or unpalatable use of a notwithstanding clause. No federal government interference because the federal government would say that it cannot do a thing, the supreme court has ruled and that decision must be respected.
This sounds familiar. It is what every traditional politician likes to do when there is a controversy. Toss it to the court if possible. At least then voters will not be able to blame government for the consequences of its inactions.
In order that all MPs will be given a say in this matter, I ask for the unanimous consent of members present to make this motion votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan have unanimous consent to have this motion made votable.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Unanimous consent is denied.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the government to the motion tabled by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
This motion highlights the differing viewpoints between the government and the hon. member with respect to national unity. As was clearly indicated in the Speech from the Throne, the government has made this issue its top priority for its current mandate. We want to proceed with national reconciliation. We believe the Calgary declaration is an important step in that direction.
The nine premiers would not support the spirit of the hon. member's motion either. Even though the results of the consultations they will be holding with their respective populations are not yet in, it already appears that the majority of Canadians support the major principles of the Calgary declaration.
The first part of the motion the member is asking us to consider concerns equality among provinces and Canadians in general. I would reassure my colleague that equality is a principle shared by all Canadians and supported fully by the our government. The first two clauses of the Calgary declaration are devoted to it.
The principle of equality is at the heart of our identity. It is a bulwark of our culture and our identity as Canadians. It is the very essence of our democratic system. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly recognizes it in section 15, which guarantees equality of Canadians before the law. In this regard, clause 1 of the Calgary declaration provides that all Canadians are equal and that their rights are protected by law.
We are also in agreement with respect to the equality status of the provinces. There are not two or three types of status for provinces. In the Canadian federation, provinces have equal status. All provinces can exercise the same powers. I would remind my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan of what clause 2 of the Calgary declaration has to say on the matter. “ All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equal status”.
Nevertheless some provinces may show more of a desire than others to exercise some of these powers. In fact, over the years, some provinces have used certain powers while others have chosen not to do so. For example, all provinces have the power to administer the collection of individual income tax, but only Quebec does so and has the necessary personnel and infrastructure.
In 1965 all provinces had the right to opt out of certain national established programs and receive appropriate compensation, including tax points. Only Quebec chose to do so, which is why the federal tax rate is lower in Quebec than in the other provinces.
Only Quebec has exercised its constitutional right to set up its own pension plan. The other provinces are covered by the Canada pension plan.
Those powers that Quebec has exercised have always been available to the other provinces. That the Government of Quebec has exercised them while others have chosen not to does not confer special status on the province. That is why clause 6 of the Calgary declaration stipulates that if any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, those powers would have to be available to all provinces. Thus equality does not mean uniformity, nor does equality of treatment mean uniformity of treatment.
Let us consider an example that concerns the province of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. When the government works with the Government of British Columbia to support Pacific salmon fishers, that does not give the province an additional right in comparison with other provinces. Rather, it means that only British Columbia has a Pacific salmon fishery.
That same flexible approach also applies to tax breaks for Alberta for oil sands development, and yet these two examples do not make our fellow citizens in Alberta or British Columbia Canadians plus.
Neither case involves special privileges, but rather different contexts. Governments must recognize that all provinces and all citizens are equal, but must also respond to a variety of needs and circumstances. The flexibility of the Canadian federation is thus expressed, by accommodating differences without compromising the principle of equality.
I would even add that each province can occupy all of its space within the federation in its full specificity and Canada is the richer for it.
Equalization is another example. Under that program the federal government makes payments to some provinces but not to others. That does not mean that inequalities are being created among the provinces. Rather it means that all citizens have access to comparable services, no matter what region they live in.
The essential difference between our party's view and my colleague's motion is that for him equality seems to mean uniformity, whereas we believe that these two concepts do not necessarily mean the same thing. To impose uniformity of treatment in a country such as ours is to deny one of its greatest treasures, its diversity. That will never be the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada.
My colleague maintains that recognizing the specificity of a province in the Constitution would run counter to the principle of equality of provinces and citizens. As I have already stated, we all agree with the principle of equality among citizens and provinces. The government, however, rejects the one size fits all approach. That is why we support recognizing the unique character of Quebec as proposed in the declaration of the nine premiers.
The Calgary declaration defines the unique character of Quebec society in terms of its French speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law. That definition reminds us that Quebec is different from the other provinces in many ways, one characteristic being that it contains within its territory the only French speaking majority on the North American continent.
I would remind my colleague that although the expression “unique character” has only recently entered the political vocabulary, all of our constitutional laws have contained implicit recognition of the distinct character of Quebec's identity from the Quebec Act of 1774 to the Constitution Act of 1982, including the Constitutional Act of 1791 and the Constitution Act of 1867.
In fact the Constitution Act of 1867 recognized Quebec's special legal system and even then contained provisions regarding bilingualism and the appointment of supreme court justices.
I would add that the constitutional recognition of the unique character of Quebec would merely formalize an existing practice in the courts, an opinion that is shared by the former chief justice of the supreme court, the Right Hon. Brian Dickson.
The unique character of Quebec society is an obvious observation which is taken into account in current practice. So how would recognizing it jeopardize the equality of citizens and provinces? Simply put, in no way.
The Calgary declaration is not a constitutional amendment. It is a statement of principles. However if recognition of the unique character of Quebec society were to be entrenched in the Constitution, that recognition would be framed as an interpretive clause like the current section 27 of the charter of rights which recognizes the multicultural character of Canada's heritage. Fifteen years after the charter was adopted, can any Canadian say that his or her rights have been threatened by that clause?
In addition to honouring the universal principle of equality, such recognition will serve the unity of the country well. As I have already said, our government made national unity its top priority in this term of office. And whatever helps the cause will receive our support.
This is why we support the Calgary declaration. We recognize that it is a positive step by proposing a framework for discussions that reflect Canadian realities and values.
I would like to finish with a quote that Canadians believe, as Alberta's premier Ralph Klein has said, in a Canada where all provinces have equal status, but a Canada that allows Quebec to protect those things that make it such a unique part of our national character, a tolerant and diverse nation where we are all equal as Canadians no matter where we live but where the word equality is not used as a blanket to smother diversity. I believe that is what Canadians believe.
Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate to see such misunderstanding of Quebec and a constant, and thinly veiled, attack on the Quebec people by English Canada.
A reading of motion M-26, which we have before us at this time, leads us to that conclusion. All Quebeckers reading it and listening to the debate would reach the same conclusion.
This is an extremely important subject for us in Quebec and I would need far more than ten minutes to explain our point of view concerning it. I will, however, make an attempt to explain it to you, and to convince the hon. members of this Parliament, solely on historical grounds, briefly of course. Solely on historical grounds, I trust that they will understand that provincial equality, as seen by the hon. Reform member, and even by the government members, does not in any way correspond to the historical demands of the Quebec people.
Speaking of history, I believe we cannot help but conclude that the creation of Canada was based on a historic misunderstanding. In 1867, when Lower Canada and Upper Canada decided to unite, it was common knowledge that francophones were a minority everywhere in North America with the exception of Lower Canada. The people of Lower Canada had agreed to a federal system knowing that this would at least give them the power and democratic control of a member state within the federation.
As for Upper Canada, what it wanted was a very strong Canada, a unitary regime. The signing did take place, however. The Fathers of Confederation did sign an agreement, believing one thing, but the facts prove that they reached a devious agreement to get around the system they had used to sell Lower Canada on signing. Since 1867, therefore, quietly but inexorably, areas under Quebec's jurisdiction have been nibbled away at, along with those of the other provinces. Quebec, however, is most vocal in its demands. The area of jurisdiction found under section 92 of the Canadian Constitution is being nibbled away at.
Little by little, in an indirect by nevertheless real way, through Supreme Court judgments—and the list is long—the federal government is taking powers away from Quebec.
The most recent example, hot off the press so to speak, is Bill C-14 on water management. If there is one area that comes under Quebec jurisdiction this is it. If there is one thing that is dear to the hearts of Quebeckers it is water. The federal government in its wisdom figured it should interfere in that area in the name of peace, order and good government or using the rule of federal precedence.
As far as the Constitution is concerned, the Quiet Revolution stirred Quebec to go from passively defending vested powers to actively claiming new powers. This is nothing new. Since the 1960s, successive Quebec premiers have constantly been asking that Quebec be given more powers. Why? Because they found it necessary for the political, social, economic and cultural development of Quebec society.
However, capitalizing on the failure of the 1980 referendum, a Prime Minister named Pierre Elliott Trudeau, together with nine English speaking provinces, repatriated the Constitution and imposed it on Quebec. It should be noted that the Constitution of 1982 was never ratified by Quebec. It was never approved by any of the Quebec premiers. Since 1982, we have had premiers in Quebec who were federalists and even Liberals. As a big brother, or small brother perhaps, of the Liberal government across the way, Robert Bourassa himself refused to sign this Constitution.
In 1982, for the first time since 1867, the Constitution was amended without Quebec's consent. That was the end of an old dream of Quebeckers, who had viewed the federation as a pact between two founding nations, which could therefore only be changed with their mutual consent.
What Motion M-26 shows is that the concept of distinct society has lost a lot of ground in a very short time. A previous speaker mentioned the Meech Lake and Charlottetown agreements and the Calgary declaration. Closer scrutiny invariably reveals that every time there is an agreement in English Canada, Quebec ends up not with more but with fewer powers.
In the Meech Lake Accord, the Bourassa government, a federalist government I might add, set out the five conditions to be met before Quebec could approve the Constitution Act of 1982. What were the five conditions?
First, recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, which would be meaningful and would be used by the courts as an interpretation formula to grant more powers when considering Quebec's traditional demands.
Second, guaranteeing a more prominent role regarding immigration.
Third, allowing Quebec to participate in the appointment of supreme court justices.
Fourth, limiting the federal government's spending power. It is through this power that, increasingly, the federal government has been taking over powers that belong to Quebec, powers that are recognized as ours under section 92 of the Constitution. With its spending power, Ottawa is putting money in areas that are not under federal jurisdiction.
Fifth, recognizing Quebec's veto on the reform of federal institutions and the creation of new provinces.
These were the five conditions seen as a minimum by a federalist Quebec premier, Robert Bourassa.
We know what happened to the Meech Lake accord. English Canada felt Quebec was getting way too much. Following this episode and some arm-twisting, the Charlottetown accord was struck. What happened then to the notion of distinct society, which was the minimum for Quebec to join the Canadian confederation?
They tried to dilute it even further, with a sort of Canada clause in which everyone was equal, in which the principle of equality of all the provinces appeared for the first time in an accord concluded with English Canada.
What became of the Charlottetown accord? It was defeated. It was defeated in the west because it gave too much power to Quebec, and it was defeated in Quebec because it gave too little power to Quebec.
Then there was the Calgary accord. The focus shifted to unique character. Distinct society was no longer of interest. And here we saw a premier who was at least honest, the premier of Ontario, who said that unique character was meaningless because everything in Canada was unique, from Pacific salmon to the tar sands of Alberta. It was all unique.
In addition, as if that were not enough, points 2 to 6 of the Calgary declaration set out clearly the equality of the provinces.
Never will a premier of Quebec, whether it be Maurice Duplessis, Lesage, Johnson, Sauvé, Bertrand, Barrette, Bourassa, Parizeau, the last Johnson, Daniel, or the present incumbent, Lucien Bouchard, allow Quebec to be put on an equal footing with all the other provinces because we are one of the two founding peoples. This historic fact must be recognized. There must be recognition of the fact that Quebec forms a people. And in this regard they must know their history, they must look at the historic demands of Quebec and reach the conclusion that a motion such as the one before us asking the House to recognize that all the provinces are equal and that none can be recognized as distinct under the Constitution of Canada is unthinkable. No, no and no.
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the citizens of my region for having chosen to send me to represent them here in the Canadian Parliament.
I come from a proud region that has always asserted its nationalism. It is a region where nationalism has also developed in a rather sustained manner because we have always had to fight to be recognized by both the major levels of government, the one in Quebec and the one in Ottawa.
On every issue, whether it be large infrastructures, social matters or regional development plans, I can tell you that great effort is always necessary to be recognized and to be able to have a fair share of the benefits to which we are entitled.
As for the resolution by my colleague from the Reform Party, I know that it is an issue where it is quite easy to slip into inflated rhetoric. I will try to avoid this, knowing that you are a member of that party, although I think that you are capable of showing understanding and objectivity in an issue that is of interest in fact to the whole country and that can at some point involve the security of the population.
Speaking of the Reform Party, I must admit that the perception I had from the exterior when that party was first created was that it was perfect in all areas, from social issues to fiscal matters. Gradually, however, I realized that this is not exactly the case. When moving a party leader into a house costs the population $115,000, I must say that since these figures were published in the public accounts, in my region and through all my colleagues, I can assure you that the party has lost a lot of credibility in its consideration of both fiscal matters and constitutional matters.
We also remember its campaign, especially during the last two weeks when conciliatory advances were made to us after we had been excluded as Quebeckers during two full weeks, after the door had been shut completely on us as partners who are acceptable, who can make a rather comprehensive contribution to the future of our country.
In short, I think the Reform Party has a long hill to climb to return to its pristine state of old. They are realizing that as they wear out it is hard to put forward proposals for national reconciliation. This seems blatantly obvious to me.
Let us take a normal family, an ordinary family. Clearly we are all equal, but we are not all identical. What is true for a family is true for a country like ours. Certain collective rights must be defended. Our language, culture and legal system are collectively different from those of the rest of Canada. It is in the interest of Canadians to do everything possible to promote the protection and development of this unique, distinct culture and of this people, which should be allowed to continue as co-owner of Canada.
We are not asking for privileges. We are co-owners of this country. We will do everything to remain so.
I was listening to my colleague from the government. The problem in this case is that grandstanding is so easy that irresponsible politicians in this country have succeeded in spoiling the social climate.
Mr. Speaker, you are a reasonable man. Do you remember the Meech Lake accord in 1990? Our government was in power and Mr. Mulroney was the Prime Minister. God knows he cannot be blamed for working toward reconciliation.
At that time, 90% of Canadians were in favour of the accord. What was the result of interventions by certain former Liberal prime ministers and premiers, Clyde Wells and two or three others? A deterioration in our social climate, and a party like the Reform accentuates that negativity.
What has led to the degeneration of our social climate in this country is the irresponsibility of certain politicians and certain political parties; instead of working constructively, working in the best interest of all Canadians and the best interest of all Quebecers, they have preferred to stoop to partisan politics. I believe this is the situation in which we find ourselves at the moment.
It is such a bad situation that, should a committee be struck, I am not sure politicians should sit on it. Like everyone else in this House, I talk to ordinary people who must work every day to earn a living. I talk to cab drivers. I talk to my barber. I think these people, who are people like us outside the House of Commons, would very quickly find a solution.
What divides and separates us is very minor. A solution could be found very quickly. Unfortunately, when politicians decide to deal with this issue, they do so for partisan motives and I am convinced this is the problem in the constitutional debate.
Yesterday, I talked to people from the education community. They told me “Mr. Harvey, will they ever leave us alone? Will some people take their responsibilities and find a reasonable solution in a country where everyone deserves a chance to have his or her place in the sun”?
Over the last 30 years, considerable effort and money has been spent on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced—and you and I have discussed this on a few occasions—that we should not try to take advantage of a situation and not always think in terms of regional interests.
I ask Reformers to adopt a more comprehensive view of things. It is not true that their plan would succeed garner support from the 20 million people in eastern Canada, if it does not recognize the collective rights demanded by all Quebeckers and by the vast majority of Canadians. This issue deserves to be settled.
Our fellow citizens are asking politicians across the country to cool down and deal with real problems by using the right words. The worst enemies of the kind of partnership everyone wants are the extremists. The people in my riding in Quebec and elsewhere come to us with real issues, economic issues, social issues; they talk about roads. They want their politicians to improve their quality of live in a real, concrete way, without arguing endlessly about minor details.
It is not true that, as I heard someone say earlier, Quebeckers believe all Canadians are against them. It is not true that Manitoba farmers wake up at night thinking about their counterparts in Lac-Saint-Jean because they hate them so much. I do not believe that. This is a highly emotional debate fuelled by irresponsible politicians with regional interests. This is the great challenge facing Canada.
I repeat, if a committee were formed to help us, as Canadians, get back on track, I wonder whether members of Parliament would be the best candidates. I would rather see it composed of ordinary folks, people familiar with the real needs of Canadians. They would find a quick solution to this problem.
It has been my pleasure, on this Friday afternoon, to make my humble contribution to this debate about an issue of concern to the whole country.
Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to private members Motion No. 26. It is important to recognize that the province of Quebec occupies a unique place in Canada and that all Canadians should reach out, whether they be Quebeckers or other Canadians, to preserve our wonderful country.
When we line up all the reasons for keeping our country united, we can manage without difficulty to celebrate and recognize Quebec, the only majority French speaking society in North America, as a fundamental characteristic in Canada. We can manage to say as did the Manitoba constitutional task force in 1991:
It is time to reach out formally to the people of Quebec and recognize in the Constitution their special identity which has contributed so significantly to the building of Canada.
Talk Constitution, why not? All democracies make constitutional changes from time to time. Usually they do so by proceeding one step at a time, one issue at a time.
It is obvious that Canada deserves to survive and can be improved even without constitutional change. It is just as obvious that Quebec has everything to gain by staying in a united Canada, whether or not the Constitution is amended. Federal Liberals have reiterated that truth unceasingly in Quebec and right across Canada. At the same time a better affirmed recognition of Quebec in our Constitution would be a good thing in and of itself, a remarkable expression of Canadian values.
Let us do a little what if experiment together. What if the people of Saskatchewan were in the situation that Quebeckers are in today? What if they lived in the only anglophone province surrounded by nine francophone provinces in Canada and French was the language of the United States, the international language of economics, finance, science, the Internet, movies, the latest pop music, and the language of immigrants from Asia or elsewhere? Why then would they not ask their fellow citizens in the other provinces to recognize this special situation they have found themselves in? We might not call it distinct society but then again we just might.
This desire to affirm cultural and regional identities is seen around the world. At the end of this century, as populations mix together, as identities become uncertain and as the number of languages is decreasing rather than increasing for the first time in the history of humanity, people are affirming their language, their culture and their identity.
The vast majority of Quebeckers feel Canadian and want to stay Canadian. They are as proud to be Quebeckers as British Columbians are proud of their province and Nova Scotians are proud of theirs.
I am proud to come from Ontario.
We need to find a way to express the obvious link between constitutional recognition of Quebec and the great Canadian value of respect for diversity. We could easily harmonize that recognition with our ideal of the equality of citizens which the Canadian charter legally entrenches. We can harmonize it easily with the equality of status of the provinces.
Equality of status must not be confused with uniform treatment. As members of the House can easily understand an example, parents love their children equally and give them the same attention, but they treat each child according to his or individual needs.
It is the ability to combine equality and diversity that has so contributed to the country's success and reputation in the world. It is precisely in that perspective that we should recognize the place of our only majority francophone province within Canada.
In so doing, we would for all practical purposes merely be formalizing a principle already admitted by our courts, a principle that leads them to take account of the context of each province in order to make just decisions, including the specific context of Quebec.
It is the eminent Saskatchewanian, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Brian Dickson, who said:
As a practical matter entrenching formal recognition of Quebec's distinctive character in the Constitution would not involve a significant departure from the existing practice of our courts.
We cannot actually amend our Constitution to express the character of Canada and the unique place of Quebec so long as a secessionist government is in office in Quebec, but we can seek the way to express what we all believe.
When the premiers of the nine provinces and the territorial leaders next meet, I hope they will continue down that road started in St. Andrews and continued in Calgary.
Yes, we are ready to engage in a positive way to secure the future of Canada. Yes, our Canada will include Quebec for ourselves and for future generations, an authentic Quebec that is part of Canada, that is part of all of us.
As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has demonstrated time and again, if it is explained that we can reconcile the diversity of Canada including Quebec's uniqueness with the principles of equality of citizens and the equal status of provinces, support for recognizing Quebec is even higher.
Let us look at the popular support for the principles of the Calgary declaration. An Angus Reid poll shows that 73% of Canadians, including no less than 70% of British Columbians, think the premiers national unity initiative is a positive step in the right direction.
A new Environics poll shows that around 70% of Canadians, including interestingly enough 68% of British Columbians and 68% of Quebeckers, support recognizing the unique character of Quebec in the Constitution as long as any advantage this may give to Quebec is made available to the other provinces.
Because Canadians judge that the principle of equality and diversity is good in and of itself they support the Calgary declaration. It is in this spirit that I urge citizens to participate in the consultation process that the provincial premiers have launched to discuss the Calgary declaration.
This is an initiative that will help keep Canada together so that as Quebeckers, as British Columbians and as Ontarian residents we can all continue to share in this marvellous country.
I hope I have demonstrated that the recognition of the specificity of Quebec does not imply a special status for that province and that it is in the interest of all Canadians that this show of good will be realized.
Further, I remind all hon. members that Canada is currently undergoing an intense period of social and political change. We have not become a tolerant country by accident. Our country has an enviable reputation in that regard because since the beginning of our history anglophones and francophones have been called on to journey together.
That spirit of openness has allowed Canadians to welcome to our country new citizens from all corners of the international community, including my family. Our diversity is a strength and a defining characteristic of our country. We all know that Canada is a remarkable human success. We all must work hard each and every day to keep it united. Every one of us can play a role in that regard.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There are five minutes remaining for Private Members' Business and it has been the convention of the House that the member moving the motion be given that five minutes to wrap up. If the hon. member would like to have the floor, it is the hon. member's privilege.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with honour that I speak for the first time in the 36th Parliament. As with my first speech in the 35th Parliament, I want to take this opportunity, in my second maiden speech, to thank the constituents of Elgin—Middlesex—London for electing me in June of 1997. It was a great honour to be re-elected. Being elected the first time was a tremendous honour, but to have it reaffirmed is certainly one of the greatest moments in my life.
Let me now turn to the issue at hand, Quebec and its uniqueness.
The starting point for me in understanding this issue was when I visited French-speaking communities in Quebec and talked to the French-speaking people of Quebec. They have a much different take on this than we do.
People need to understand that at a very fundamental level they feel threatened by living in what they see as an anglophone Canada, an anglophone North America and, in may respects, with the age of Internet, mass communications and satellites, what may turn into an anglophone world. What they want is some recognition in the rest of the country of their Frenchness. They want some understanding that they can have a minimum of protection in the Constitution. In certain respects it is an emotional thing, but they feel that their culture, their heritage and particularly their language are under great threat.
I explained this to people in St. Thomas. When we see a Pizza Hut open up or a Blockbuster video on the main street of St. Thomas it is not a cultural issue. When my children play on the Internet, that is not a cultural issue. If I go to an American movie, again, it is not a cultural issue. If I am bombarded with Much Music on television when my kids are watching it, it is not a big issue for me as an English-speaking person. However, those types of things in a French-speaking community may be taken far differently. They may be taken as just another sign of the dominance of English in our culture today.
It is at that level that they feel they need some protection. They want it to be recognized by the rest of the country. They want some acknowledgement. The greatest acknowledgement they can have is a simple line in the Constitution which states that they are unique and that they can enact laws to protect that uniqueness, within the parameters of the charter of rights and freedoms which ensures that all Canadians are equal. I think it is quite reasonable that it be within the parameters of the notion that all provinces are equal.
If we go to a French community today we may find no one who speaks English or very few who speak English. They actually believe that 30, 40 or 50 years down the road their children and their grandchildren, because of all these outside pressures, will be speaking English. When we start to understand the issue at that emotional level, I think we can understand what they are after.
They are after recognition, which the Calgary declaration does an adequate job of providing. It recognizes Quebec as being unique. We can debate whether we should use the word distinct, unique or some other word. For me, it is really about semantics. It really does not matter. The main point is that the majority of Quebeckers are French speaking and they want to protect their culture.
Once they get the recognition, they also want to have a veto over changes to the Constitution. That will basically give them the two anchors of any constitutional change. They need recognition and they also need a regional veto.
If we open our minds to this we can see the possibility as can people in my own community of Elgin. One person compared it to ethnic clubs. He said that he could care less when the German people get together and they go to the German club, the Saxsonia Hall in Aylmer and speak German for example. He could care less about a Hungarian club that might be in Simcoe or some other place, or a Croatian club just outside St. Thomas. It matters not to him that the people in Quebec want to speak French. He says that is a perfectly legitimate thing.
I explained to him that it will not affect his right for anything, that it will not make him any less equal, that it is really about people protecting their language and their culture. At its most fundamental level this is respect for the ways of their parents and grandparents, for the traditions that have been passed down. It is respect for the traditions they have grown up with and a desire to see those traditions passed on to their children and their grandchildren.
We can all understand that. We are proud of our heritage. We are proud of what our ancestors did regardless of our ethnic backgrounds. In Quebec they feel particularly threatened and they want to see it protected. I think we should support that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time for Private Members' Business is at its end. I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, two minutes to wrap up. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan to have two minutes?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that my motion has produced such a good debate. I hope through it all we have learned much about each other's opinions, our differences and our similarities. Surely that is what part of this was all about.
I want to say especially to my hon. colleagues from the Bloc that they should not ever see this as an attack on Quebec. It has always been my desire to see the country stay united with a strong Quebec with its unique culture as part of a strong Canada where people are seen as equal and differences are tolerated.
However the hon. member should realize that many other Canadians see the use of a phrase like distinct society as the way for a particular majority in any province to have its way over a minority. I would not tolerate that kind of situation in my own province of British Columbia let alone in the province of Quebec or in any other province of Canada.
Equality certainly does not mean uniformity. No one in his right mind would think that. We in this country are a very diverse people. If we are going to get along in this nation we must not use phrases which for many people are seen as giving anyone or any group special status over anybody else. After all we have Canadians of aboriginal background. We have Canadians of Ukrainian background, Canadians of Italian background and I could go on and on.
A nation cannot survive as a bunch of separate and distinct societies. It will never weave the kind of fabric that is needed to keep the blanket of the country together. Sooner or later it will unravel and there will be no country at all. Je suis Canadien. I was born a Canadian, I will die a Canadian.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper. It being 1.54 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, November 17, 1997 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.54 p.m.)