1999-04-23

Government Orders
Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification ActHon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): 
moved that Bill C-64, an act to establish an indemnification program for travelling exhibitions, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at first glimpse Bill C-64 looks like a relatively small technical piece of legislation of apparent interest only to people who work in Canada's museums. However this legislation has tremendous potential. It has the potential to affect the heart, soul and mind of every Canadian now and in years to come.
With this legislation in place every Canadian will be that much closer to seeing and experiencing many of the world's treasures that are all too often inaccessible except to a fortunate few.
Canada has museums, art galleries, libraries and archival depositories that are renowned throughout the world. They house treasures that belong to all the people of Canada. Many of us, if not most of us, have never had an opportunity to admire them.
For someone living in Red Deer, in Moose Jaw, Trois-Rivières, Corner Brook or such small places as Howe, Saskatchewan, which I have had the opportunity to visit, Mattawa, where I was born, or Saint-Eleutère-Pohénégamook in the lower St. Lawrence region of Quebec, it is not always possible to get to Vancouver, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City or Fredericton to see exhibitions.
The entire world is full of wonderful things which Canada's children and youth will probably never get to see, for most people cannot afford to visit Rome, Paris, Beijing or Johannesburg.
But what if these treasures came to Canadians, instead of Canadians having to travel to see them? What if the world's greatest works could be brought here to Canada, and if Canada's art works could be seen by people the world over?
Far more Canadians would then have an opportunity to learn more about their history, their heritage, their identity, and the world's masterpieces.
This is precisely the essence of Bill C-64: to give Canadians the chance to know Canada, to open up the world to Canadians, to open up Canada to the rest of the world.
The bill deals with a major roadblock in putting exhibitions on the road. One solution is to get rid of the high cost of insurance. That is what the bill will allow us to do, to greatly lower the cost of insurance by covering loss or damages to an exhibition through an indemnification program: no money up front, only after the fact, only if needed.
Fourteen industrialized countries including the United States, Great Britain, Australia and France have have had their own government sponsored indemnity programs for years. Do they work? They more than work. In 23 years of operation the United States indemnity program has received only two claims at a cost of just more than $100,000 U.S. out of a total annual indemnification value of $3 billion. It is a similar story for the other 13 countries with similar programs. The precedent has been set.
Risk for Canada would be minimized by stringent eligibility criteria in a number of areas, including plans for security, environmental control and artefact handling.
Having a sliding scale will do away with requests for relatively minor indemnification.
It also means that insurance companies will not be excluded, because they will continue to supply insurance policies. Exhibitions valued at less than $500,000 would not be eligible for this program, and the maximum indemnification per exhibition would be $450 million.
The risk to government could be further reduced by setting a maximum of $1.5 billion for all exhibitions indemnified during a fiscal year.
With this bill, we want first and foremost to circulate Canadian heritage and to put it within the reach of all Canadians. We also want it accessible to visiting tourists. We want to make the wonders of the world more and more accessible to the people of Canada.
We must not ignore the economic impact of visitors to a province, a region or a city anywhere in the country. The Barnes exhibition at the Art Gallery of Ontario alone generated $38 million in consumer spending, much of which comes from the some 65,000 foreign visitors to Canada. The same phenomenon occurs pretty well across the board in other cities in Canada.
Last summer, I had the honour of visiting the Rodin exhibit in Quebec City. The exhibition was thronged and beautiful. The same phenomenon is happening with the Monet exhibit in Montreal, which I have also had the opportunity of seeing, and it occurs in the rest of the country as well.
Consider also last fall's Renoir exhibition at the National Gallery in my own backyard: $6 million in restaurant sales, a quarter of a million room nights in Canadian hotels and motels, 80,000 more people visiting Parliament Hill, and $25 million spent by visitors from abroad.
Exhibitions are about culture. They are also about jobs, manufacturing, consumption of goods and services, and tax revenues for all levels and orders of government.
I am honoured to have the National Gallery in the riding of Ottawa—Vanier that I represent. I know families from St. John's, Victoria, Whitehorse or Val d'Or cannot take a walk or a mere drive to the National Gallery as can my constituents and those in the national capital region.
I would like the wonders of that gallery, the Group of Seven paintings, the Emily Carr paintings, the modern sculptures and the antique artefacts, to travel to all Canadians. The bill is one big step in making that happen. As a proud Canadian, as all of us here, I think that is fantastic.
If our museums, art galleries, archives and libraries are to compete with institutions in other countries in order to borrow the world's most prestigious collections, we must pass this bill.
If we want a greater share of tourist revenues, we must pass this bill.
If we want our kids to see more Canadian art firsthand, we need this legislation. If we want our kids exposed to the greatest works of art in the history of humanity, we need this legislation. A vote for this bill is a vote for the achievement of Canadians and for our national identity. It is a vote for opening up the world to our children. It is a vote for culture and the power it brings to the human mind, the human soul and the human heart.
I am delighted from preliminary conversations with representatives of the opposition parties that there seems to be a substantial amount of support for the legislation. I encourage speedy passage at second reading so that the committee can be tasked with dealing with the bill and report as early as possible.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-64 this morning.
The Reform Party, the official opposition, certainly supports Bill C-64, the Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act. The bill would in effect make the Government of Canada the underwriters for travelling international exhibitions under the auspices of public institutions up to a maximum of $450 million per show and up to an aggregate of $1.5 billion for any given year.
Before I begin to tell the House why we support Bill C-64, I want to say that this is another good example of Reform's support for legislation put forth by the government. It makes sense and it will ultimately provide better service to all Canadians.
Our record shows that almost half of the time we do support legislation from the government side. We support legislation when it is well thought out, when the people have been consulted and when we know the impact that it will have on the country. This side of the House would support more legislation if the government would be more transparent and take its time when it is putting together its legislation.
I will now tell the House why the official opposition believes Bill C-64 should be supported. By serving as underwriter to the public travelling exhibitions, the government potentially saves taxpayers the cost of paying a premium for private showings. For example, insurance on a recent travelling exhibition valued at $1.5 billion carries a premium of $1 million. Under the current circumstance, how can anyone afford to pay those types of premiums? Without this legislation, the premium is certainly a barrier to museums and other organizations that would like to bring in international and national exhibits and have them circulated throughout the country.
As long as standards of security, care and transportation are maintained at a high level, it seems unlikely that a potential liability would turn into an actual liability. Under a federal United States identification program, with a ceiling of $5 billion, in the last 25 years of operation only two claims were filed totalling $100,000.
I had the opportunity to meet with the Canadian Museum Association this past year to discuss Bill C-64 in-depth. This indemnification program was requested by the museums and by the Canadian Museum Association. They want the bill amended so that the maximum aggregate liability of $1.5 billion in any fiscal year be changed to $1.5 billion at any time.
However, section 53 and 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 require that supply be specifically proposed by the crown and specifically authorized by the House of Commons. From a constitutional point of view, $1.5 billion at any time is disallowed. There is provision in the subclause for the amount to be raised or lowered by an appropriation act for a given year.
There is no minimum exhibition value set for participation in the indemnification program by the governor in council, but the governor in council is authorized to make regulations for setting a minimum. The government intends to set the minimum at $500,000 in order to maintain standards sufficiently high that losses are highly unlikely. This is a good approach.
It has been mentioned by the parliamentary secretary that there will certainly be a spillover of economic impact from major exhibitions. This could run into the tens of millions of dollars and would have a huge impact on local governments, provincial governments, local chambers and local small business because it would generate economic activity.
People from many miles away will literally flock to these exhibits. This will give the people of this country an opportunity to see world-class exhibits which would otherwise not occur. From that point of view, there are a lot of pluses with Bill C-64. This program will keep costs low. Decisions as to what kind of exhibitions will travel would be left up to the museums.
The Reform Party supports the freedom of Canadian culture in communities to grow and develop without needless protection and government regulation, encouraging a cultural free market which offers choice while lowering costs to consumers as services are provided by those sectors which are able to do so most cost effectively.
The indemnification in Bill C-64 is the kind of program that all governments can do with little cost to the taxpaying public. It brings sufficient economic as well as cultural benefits to the citizens of the country. Therefore, the official opposition supports the bill and also supports all stage consideration by the House on Bill C-64.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-64, an act to establish an indemnification program for travelling exhibitions, at second reading.
This bill seeks to establish a program of indemnification for international exhibitions, and for domestic exhibitions that are shown in at least two provinces. It will empower the Government of Canada to assume the financial risk, and provide compensation, for damage to or loss of an item that is part of the exhibition.
The program's main feature is that it will allow museums to save several hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance, which is a very significant amount of savings for the arts world, as the hon. member pointed out.
Let me say from the outset that the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of the bill. Indeed, we fully agree with the idea of helping museums by assuming a financial burden, which they certainly could do without. However, we would like to see some amendments to the bill. I will elaborate on these in the second part of my speech.
First, let us take a look at how this legislation came to be. The facts to which I am referring are taken from a report prepared in February 1997 for the Canadian Museums Association.
Canada once had an indemnification program for exhibitions. That program was established in 1985, but abolished in 1995, as part of the program review. During its 11 years of existence, the program was used to insure 157 travelling exhibitions sponsored by 50 museums, for an estimated total value of $6 billion.
The program had been set up to help museums deal with the huge increase in the value of works of art and, consequently, in insurance costs, which had become prohibitive. Today, these costs have not diminished, far from it.
At the international level, various studies, some dating back to 1974, concluded that the establishment of government sponsored indemnification programs was more effective than commercial insurance for travelling exhibitions. Not only is this method more economical, because breakage is very limited, but it also has the advantage of eliminating the problems associated with legal interpretations of the policies and legislation of various countries, which is reassuring to art lenders. During the 1980s, studies done in Canada reached the same conclusions. It so happened that in 1981 the Art Gallery of Ontario was to host a Van Gogh exhibition. Shortly before the opening, one of Van Gogh's paintings was auctioned off for a very large amount. As a result the owners of the items on loan demanded that coverage be increased accordingly. The insurance premium went up so much that the federal government had to step in.
The following year, in 1982, during the annual federal-provincial meeting of ministers of culture, a resolution was passed to set up a task force to examine the details of an indemnification program for exhibitions, in consultation with representatives of federal and provincial museums. This task force pointed out the savings that such a program would produce.
In fact, according to the task force's figures, claims for breakage during travelling exhibitions from 1972 to 1982, a ten year period, were slightly higher than $300,000, half of which represented a single claim. The task force therefore recommended an indemnification program for exhibitions worth over $5 million.
In June 1985, the federal government announced the introduction of an insurance program for travelling exhibitions so that Canadians would have access to exhibitions that would otherwise cost too much, and so that Canada could host major exhibitions.
During its lifetime, the indemnification program cost the federal government and the museums $6.6 million, and insured 157 exhibits by 50 museums, for a total coverage of $6 billion.
Claims made over the 10 years of the program's existence totalled $550,000, which I would point out is far below the claims average for the Canadian insurance industry.
In 1995, 15 countries were offering support to museums in one form or another, in order to insure travelling exhibits. The program implemented in the United States allowed eligible museums and galleries to save some $90 million U.S. in insurance premiums between 1975 and 1977. Over that same period, claims totalled only $104,700 U.S. This shows how low the costs of such a program are.
In introducing this bill today, the federal government is merely catching up with other countries in the world that already have similar museum support programs.
Now that we have examined the background to this bill, I would like to set out the points which are, in my humble opinion, the most problematical. In fact, what I am doing is passing on to the House comments that are supported by the people who work in museums.
Although the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of the bill, we would like to see certain essential changes made to it. First of all, the definition of travelling exhibit ought to be amended to include those not presented in at least two Canadian provinces; second, the annual eligible limit needs to be raised substantially; third, the two subjective criteria for eligibility of travelling exhibits, namely educational and professional quality of the exhibition, and significance and relevance of the theme and content to Canadians, ought to be changed.
First, the requirement to show the exhibition in at least two provinces is found in clause 2, which sets two conditions for an exhibition to be considered a travelling exhibition, namely that the total fair market value of the objects in the exhibition that are borrowed from outside Canada exceed the total fair market value of those borrowed from inside Canada, or that the exhibition be shown in at least two provinces.
The problem with the second condition is that international exhibitions are rarely shown in more than one province. In fact, they rarely shown on more than one continent.
Also, a more modest exhibition may be of interest to a province, but not to the other regions of the country. The Bloc Quebecois feels that the residents of one province are taxpayers just like the residents of two different provinces, and must be entitled to the same services.
This provision will also have a greater impact in Quebec, where exhibitions are often shown in French only and can therefore not be presented in English speaking provinces.
As for our second point, which is to raise the annual maximum liability, we are not the only ones to raise this issue. Indeed, all the museum officials to whom we talked unanimously condemned the indemnification program's annual maximum liability, since that maximum can be reached with three major exhibitions.
This ceiling is all the more unacceptable because experience has shown that claims by museums are below the insurance industry's average, and that an authorized maximum is set for each eligible exhibition.
However, this measure coupled with clause 5(a), which limits accessibility to the program to exhibitions valued at $500,000, will restrict the bill's application to big exhibitions and the major facilities.
Need we remind you that the major exhibitions—Picasso, Renoir, Daumier and Van Gogh—at the National Gallery of Canada alone represent a total value of several billion dollars. Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois would like the Minister of Finance to raise the annual ceiling for eligibility to the indemnification program considerably.
I would remind the hon. members that clause 3 of the bill provides that the government's liability cannot exceed $450 million per exhibition and $1.5 billion annually for all exhibitions.
Furthermore, clause 5 permits the governor in council to make regulations for the purpose of, first, limiting the minimum value of eligible exhibitions and, second, establishing the criteria for the conclusion of indemnification agreements.
We have been told that the minimum value of eligible exhibitions would be $500,000. This minimum is way too high for small travelling exhibitions. The Société des musées du Québec, for example, is asking for a limit of $200,000. The Bloc Quebecois supports its recommendation.
Finally, the criteria to be considered in the conclusion of indemnification agreements provided in the bill include, in subparagraphs 5( b )(ii) and 5( b )(iii), and I quote:
(ii) the educational and professional quality of the exhibition,
(iii) the significance and relevance to Canadians of the exhibition's theme and contents,
The Bloc wants these overly subjective criteria deleted. Why does the government want the privilege of deciding on the educational quality of exhibitions and their significance for Canadians? Does it hope to use travelling exhibitions for propaganda purposes? I put the question.
Furthermore, the Bloc Quebecois is not alone in its reservations. They are shared by the president of the Société des musées du Québec, Hélène Pagé. She made her views known at the hearing held at the head office of Radio-Canada in Montreal on February 25 by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
I should begin by pointing out that the Société des musées du Québec is made up of 250 museums in Quebec, which, according to a recent survey, were visited by some 14.8 million people in 1997-98.
So as to clearly convey Ms. Pagé's thoughts to members of the House, I will read what she said:
—we have seen the draft bill and it is quite worrisome because there does not seem to be an understanding of what a travelling exhibit is. There are two conditions. The travelling exhibit must contain more foreign objects than Canadian objects, whereas we know that an exhibit that comes from abroad does not include any Canadian objects, or else it must travel in two provinces. The great international exhibits are presented once on the European continent, once in the United State and in one Canadian province. They don't go to two provinces.
She states further:
Secondly, the regulations are worrisome because here again, it is somewhat coloured by politics. A regulation will decree what makes an exhibit have educational value and interest for Canadians. I don't understand that this can be done by regulation. There is no trust in the museum professionals. Who will decree that this exhibit interests Canadians or not; that the Monet exhibit in Montreal is not really interesting for Canadians? There is truly a problem there, and a connotation of political intervention in a bill for which we had high hopes.
Another thing is worrisome. We have learned that it would only apply to exhibits of a value of $5,000 and up. Only the large national museums are able to present that kind of exhibit. The others only present that kind of exhibit on an exceptional basis. If a small museum in Newfoundland or Quebec presented an exhibit worth between $90,000 and $200,000 and an unfortunate fire occurred, it would be a total catastrophe. The museum would not be compensated.
Therefore, this is a bill that will be useful to the big museums but not the small ones. Right now, throughout the country, the smaller museums are experiencing a great deal of difficulty.
That was a long quote, but an interesting one. As members can see, there are very clear concerns among museum directors about this bill, and the government needs to be attuned to them. The professionals working in this field, those who are knowledgeable about it, need to be trusted. If competent people like Mrs. Pagé voice reservations, the government needs to heed them, and to make the changes they are asking for.
It would be a great disappointment if we were to feel obliged to oppose this bill on next reading just because the government's intent was to make political hay from an indemnification program.
It has been clearly demonstrated that this program was a highly economical one with great advantages for the museums.
Why should the program not be expanded to include more museum exhibitions, since this is easily done? I would remind this House that every possible precaution is taken by museums. Every possible effort is made to protect exhibits and to ensure that they are not damaged. Hence there are virtually no losses and very few accidents.
In conclusion, the federal government has a duty to demonstrate its confidence in the museum community, by amending the bill as requested, solely in order to include as many exhibitions as possible. I trust that the government will be responsive to the real needs of the museum community.
Message From The SenateThe Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-64, an act to establish an indemnification program for travelling exhibitions, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the NDP is pleased to speak in support of Bill C-64, an act to provide for the indemnification of travelling exhibits. It is easy to see what the motivation was for the introduction of this bill given the research we have been doing.
Currently for museums to field travelling exhibitions they have to undertake commercial insurance offset by help from the federal government for a total of $6 million per year. In order for Canadian museums to tour shows we are paying up to $6 million a year to commercial insurance in the event that they may suffer damage or loss to some of the artefacts or exhibits, whereas the empirical evidence shows it can be far more cheaply undertaken by a socialized system. If the government undertakes the risk and the liability, it will cost far less.
In the United States the American government undertakes the risk for $3 billion worth of artefacts touring the U.S. In 23 years of operation there have only been two claims amounting to payouts of less than $100,000. The American model underwrites a far greater amount of value in artefacts and the empirical evidence has been that only two claims were made for less than $100,000.
We are spending $6 million a year to the commercial insurance industry. It is only common sense that this is one of those good examples of where government can do it better. Rather than have this insurance product contracted out, if we keep that work in house, we all reap the savings and the museums can feel more comfortable in taking their exhibits on the road.
Many of us undervalue the role Canadian museums play and the level of interest in the community for Canadian museums and the good work they do. According to our research there are over 24,100 employees of Canadian museums, a figure that may surprise many members here. There are also 55,000 volunteers which indicates to me huge interest and support in the community for the work they do.
An even more telling figure of the value of our Canadian museums and why we should support them with this bill is that 54.9 million people visited museums last year. In a country of 30 million people that means almost every Canadian went twice to a museum, or some people went an awful lot. That is all the more reason to share the wonderful products, the message, culture and heritage Canadian museums hold with more Canadians by taking their shows on the road.
Museums have not been so inclined to get involved with travelling exhibitions, whether of their own artefacts or of touring international shows, because of the terrible risk they face in terms of loss of artefacts. They are dealing with priceless products, absolutely world class items in many cases. There is no possibility of ever replacing them accurately. As a result the commercial insurance industry has no choice but to put a very high value on those products.
I was involved recently with a travelling show at the Museum of Man and Nature in Manitoba. I was very pleased to take part in it. I raise this only as an example of the value of taking shows out of the museum and into the communities so more people can see them.
Museums can actually play a role, and always have, in shaping social policy through education. This one example was the very pressing and timely issue of child labour.
The Museum of Man and Nature to its credit put together an exhibit of photographs by David Parker called “Stolen Dreams”. It dealt with this man who travelled all throughout the world and found examples of child labour. It did not stop there. The museum put together a multimedia interactive exhibit. There would be a photograph of a child working in a brickyard in India and a lever next to it. Some kid looking at the picture could push on that lever and actually feel how heavy it is to carry a load of bricks for 12 hours a day.
This exhibit will be taken beyond Manitoba. I know it is going to Vancouver and all around the country. CIDA has helped to put this show on the road. By travelling, this show will expose and sensitize far more kids than could possibly have been exposed to this very real and pressing international issue. It is very important.
I raise that as one example of the importance of museums ignoring their physical barriers, the walls of their own buildings. Rather than trying to take Mohamed to the mountain, the mountain will be taken to Mohamed.
It makes sense to do this internally. We can look at socialized auto insurance. No one who has ever lived in a province that is lucky enough to have government run auto insurance would ever argue that we should go back to the commercial carriers because we were simply paying too much.
The Government of Canada was paying too much to insure these artefacts. Now we know. All we have to do is look to our neighbours to the south. We did not have to spend $6 million a year to underwrite some of these touring exhibits. It is $100,000 a year in the United States to insure $3 billion worth of products. We are talking about a maximum value of $450 million per exhibit.
There is one thing I would criticize about Bill C-64. I would hope people would review it when it gets into further debate. Exhibitions under Bill C-64 must have a value in excess of $500,000 to qualify for the program. I am a little suspect of that. I wish that could be altered because in the example I gave, whether it qualified or not, we would have been dealing with photographs and with relatively inexpensive materials. The artefacts were not as important as the interactive value. Really $500,000 would preclude a lot of valuable exhibits from being underwritten and taken on the road.
I hope that the figure could be brought down to something more realistic. I am not sure why there has to be a minimum dollar value unless there is a breaking point where it simply is not worth the paperwork. If the exhibit was only worth $500, there may be more than $500 worth of administration to register the articles and so on. A realistic figure would be $100,000. If the exhibit has a net value of $100,000, it should qualify under this otherwise very worthy program.
Museums need a break. The Government of Canada should not be paying more than it needs to but neither should the museums. Look at what they have been facing in recent years.
There has been a huge escalation in the number of museums and related institutions in the country. In 1972 the Canadian Museums Association listed 838 museums, galleries and institutions. As of 1999 there were 2,271 listings in the directory. It has expanded 200-fold.
Going back to 1990-91 the total museum funding was $210 million, give or take. It went to a high and spiked at almost $220 million in 1995. In the year 1999-2000 it will go down to $193 million. They have actually seen quite a cutback in their overall budget funding in a period of time where the number of institutions was escalating. I would assume the burden then falls to more volunteers, more community input or other levels of government funding museums. Many of them are still operating in a very healthy fashion.
The museum in Dawson City where I used to live had quite an impact on the community. It helped to shape and save the whole community. When I moved to Dawson City it was a ramshackle town of falling down buildings. Nobody cared a hoot if Dawson City washed away into the Klondike River because it was an old ghost town with a couple of leftovers still hanging around from an old time.
In 1970 or so Parks Canada had the common sense, prior to all this stuff slipping away, to try to hang on to some of the artefacts that were disappearing like crazy. The museum got going and started to give value to these products which otherwise had no value; they were junk. Tourists could pick up an artefact and take it home, resulting in the history of the place disappearing. It was truly the people with the foresight to start the museum who saved the town by giving value to articles which otherwise had no value.
Dawson Creek has now been rebuilt. It is a tourist destination, a mecca. The real catalyst was the people, including the Parks Canada people to their credit, who had the foresight to start to catalogue and chronicle the wonderful rich history of Dawson Creed.
Bill C-64 recognizes the value of Canadian museums and the way Canadians feel about their museums. It does not go as far as talking about restoration or overall museum funding—that is not the nature of the bill—but it does help and speaks to the value that Canadians give to their museums. Our caucus is proud to support Bill C-64.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise before the House to debate Bill C-64 at second reading, the Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act.
Ever since the Liberal government discontinued its cost sharing insurance arrangements with our Canadian museums, curators across the country have been struggling with the high cost of insurance premiums on travelling exhibitions.
Depending on the quality of the exhibition in question, insurance premiums can cost thousands of dollars. These high costs are a serious deterrent to our museums which are striving to provide Canadians with the broadest possible collections of art and artefacts. Without these exhibits Canadians throughout the country will be losing out on a very important aspect of our cultural heritage.
One of the main shortcomings of our education system is that it does not make full use of our museums as a teaching tool for our children. Reading history or art books cannot replace the immediate joy that comes from being in direct contact with objects or works of art from the past.
It is especially important for young Canadians to be able to see what life was like for those who worked hard to build this great country of ours so we can reap the benefits today. Children must understand what life was like before this era of high technology to better understand the supreme efforts everyone must make to be successful in this complex world in which we live.
What is indemnification for travelling exhibitions? In essence it means that the Canadian government will assume financial risk for damages to contents contained within travelling exhibitions. This means that the government will pay for loss or damage to objects in these exhibitions.
Not only will this indemnification program relieve some of the financial burden that is affecting most of Canada's museums. It will also help them negotiate the loan of other prestigious foreign exhibitions. Having Canada's financial resources to back up foreign exhibitions should make it a lot easier to access some of the major cultural exhibits from other nations.
As I mentioned previously, the federal government withdrew its support for cost sharing of insurance in 1995. In the 10 years prior to 1995 the federal government invested approximately $6 million in premiums for commercial insurance.
By creating a government sponsored indemnification program Canada will join 14 other industrialized countries that presently offer such a program to their respective museums. Countries like the U.S., Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia and France have recognized the advantages that such a program has for the enhancement of one of their major cultural industries. The eligibility requirements to receive the indemnification program will be determined by the value of the individual exhibitions.
At present the bill requires that the total value of objects must exceed $500,000 to qualify for coverage. I am concerned that by establishing a benchmark of $500,000 for qualification, many of the smaller museums in the country will not be able to access this funding and will miss out on the intended benefits of the program. I would suggest that we revisit this figure to see if we could not arrive at a more reasonable figure that will benefit both our small and large museums alike.
The total coverage allotted within the bill would be limited to $450 million for exhibitions. Perhaps this figure could also be re-examined when the bill comes before committee.
For years our Canadian museum representatives have been lobbying government to implement an effective government based indemnification program. During meetings in Ottawa of the Canadian heritage committee we have had the occasion to meet with a number of very distinguished individuals from across the country representing our museums, libraries and public archives. It was during these hearings that I heard firsthand of the significance that such an indemnification program would have on our museums. Subsequently this message was repeated on many other occasions as our committee crossed the country to meet directly with interested groups and organizations.
Mr. François Lachapelle, directeur general corporation du Musée régional de Rimouski, was the first to focus my attention on this issue as he discussed possible government initiatives that would be very beneficial for our museums. Allow me to quote Mr. Lachapelle:
You will understand that moving a national treasure from one province to another or to another country is going to be extremely costly in terms of insurance because of its great value or of the high risk involved in transportation, etc. Therefore, the premiums charged by insurance companies will be extremely high. That is why this program is very important so exhibitions can travel outside Canada.
This sentiment was further supported by Ms. Candace Stevenson, executive director of Nova Scotia Museum. She represents the 25 provincial museums in my home province. Ms. Stevenson believes this indemnification program will be a tremendous boost for many of our institutions, although it is questionable whether any of Nova Scotia's museums will actually be able to benefit from it.
It does not take away from the benefits the program, however, will have on Canadian museums in general.
Although the government seems to be responding to the concerns expressed by our museums, let us not forget that it is the government itself that put Canadian museums in a critical situation by making significant cuts to their budgets over the last few years.
In 1972 the initial budget for museum assistance programs hovered around $8 million per year. By the early 1990s their budget was increased to a maximum of $15 million despite a Canadian Museum Association recommendation for a budget of $25 million per year. Last year the Liberal government reduced this amount to a paltry $6.5 million, leaving the museum industry reeling to try to find alternative financial resources.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage has since announced subsequent increases to the MAP of $2 million and $1 million respectively, putting the 1999 budget at $9.4 million. This amount does not come close to responding to the grave concerns expressed by our museum representatives.
As it stands now our museum directors barely have the resources necessary to maintain their present exhibits, no less try to expand their collections. Not only must a museum be concerned with preserving valuable artefacts, in many instances they must invest enormous resources in maintaining their buildings themselves, which are often historical landmarks.
Each time we neglect archaeological finds for lack of funding, we lose an important part of our country's history. Artefacts are impossible to replace once they are lost. It is high time we started focusing our energy on the preservation of our cultural heritage for future generations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member for West Nova would forgive me, I think we will interrupt proceedings a little early to see if we can get more Statements by Members in today.
There will be time for questions and comments when debate resumes and the hon. member for West Nova will have approximately 9 or 10 minutes remaining with the resumption of debate.

Statements By Members
Sikh CommunityMr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Monday the Government of Canada unveiled a 46¢ stamp to honour one century of contributions to Canada by the Canadian Sikh community. In unveiling the commemorative stamp the Prime Minister said:
This celebration is very much what Canada is all about. As Canadians, many of us today take it for granted that this country values equality and fairness. The experience shows us that was not always the case.
Indeed the history of the Sikh community in Canada left a scar in our nation's past when the Sikhs on the Komagata Maru were refused entry and sent back to India. Canada has now buried the lingering memories of the Komagata Maru .
Last Monday's occasion reminds us that out of a people's struggle emerges the strength of a nation's citizenship. We can all be proud that Canada is a nation of people who have brought to this land diversity, values and honour.
Canada Book DayMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is Canada Book Day and to mark the occasion Canadians are invited to celebrate books and the love of reading by participating in Canada Book Day activities.
Canada's vital cultural legacy is reflected in its literature. On this day Canadians are encouraged to buy books, attend readings, receptions, book giveaways, and participate in contests in celebration of our literature and the rich cultural heritage it represents.
Through its support of the book publishing industry the Government of Canada will strive to ensure the continued rejuvenation of Canadian literature and the continued enrichment of our country's social and economic life. The future of our book industry, however, lies primarily in the hands of all Canadians.
We therefore encourage Canadians everywhere to take part in Canada Book Day activities and to support this important national resource by rediscovering Canadian books. Information about activities in various communities can be found on line at www.canadabookday.com.
WarMr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we were honoured yesterday morning to hear Kim Phuc at the parliamentary prayer breakfast.
She was burned by a napalm bomb during the Vietnam war and suffered terribly with burns all over her body. The picture of Kim running and crying became the symbol of the horrible suffering that children endure in war.
However she has found in the Christian faith the ability to forgive her attackers and tormentors. Her presentation was truly inspirational. She exudes grace.
Seeing the families of Kosovo on TV these days reminds me that my family escaped under similar circumstances. War and expelling citizens from their country is never an answer to problems. I am very grateful that my family also chose to exercise forgiveness. Even though my family lost everything in the old country, we had the opportunity to make a peaceful living in Canada.
Dental Health MonthMr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to remind members that April is Dental Health Month, a time to celebrate the smile.
The Canadian Dental Association and its provincial counterparts use Dental Health Month for promotions to raise our awareness of dental health issues. Some dental associations host public lectures on important subjects like oral cancer and mouth care for the elderly. Many groups mount mall displays and sponsor contests; others co-ordinate free dental clinics for the needy.
These are just a few examples of the efforts undertaken during Dental Health Month. They all have a common purpose: to reinforce the elements of prevention, from brushing and flossing, to visiting the dentist for regular checkups and eating a healthy diet. Dentistry's commitment to prevention is to be commended. It is a commitment that is celebrated during Dental Health Month, but practised all year round.
Patricia Picknell Elementary SchoolMs. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next Saturday I will have the great pleasure of taking part in the official opening of the Patricia Picknell Elementary School in my riding of Oakville, in Ontario.
After numerous years of lobbying, the francophone community of Oakville can be proud of its achievements.
Jointly selected by the school board, the students and the faculty, the school is named in honour of Patricia Picknell-Arseneault, who regrettably passed away last July.
A tireless defender of francophone rights, Mrs. Picknell's legacy to the Franco-Ontarian landscape will endure for generations. To her family and friends, she will be remembered as the very embodiment of French Canadian joie de vivre.
As a former school board trustee for Halton, Waterloo and Wellington, Mrs. Picknell promoted and defended the francophone rights to a quality education in their mother tongue.
I am sure members of this House will join me in congratulating the Franco-Ontarian community in Oakville.
Acadian Village In West PubnicoMark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the people in West Pubnico who, for the past nine years, have been working very hard to recreate a 17th century Acadian village.
The village, which should be opened to the public this year, is located on the very spot where the first Acadian settlers probably settled.
During the first stage of the project, four old buildings will be moved from West Pubnico to the village. Two houses, a blacksmith shop and a fish shed will be carefully restored.
Visitors will have the opportunity to take part in various activities such as cooking a typical Acadian meal, tending to livestock, salting fish and much more.
The Acadian village will be an authentic representation of a culture that has survived the 1755 deportation and the many English influences surrounding us.
I am proud of my Acadian heritage and happy to see people in Pubnico West take the initiative of celebrating our past, thus helping to preserve our future.
Crimes Against HumanityMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all too frequently humanity sinks to such depravity that it wreaks death and destruction on its own.
What motivates and drives such diabolical crimes against civilization might only be the understanding and the purview of the insane and the almighty.
Tens of millions have died in genocide this century alone; in the Ukrainian famine, the holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda, Armenia and now possibly Kosovo.
Over seven million Ukrainians perished in the famine brought on by Stalin's Russia in the 1930s. Over seven million starved to death under the dictate of a man gone mad. Tomorrow in Calgary a monument will be unveiled on Memorial Drive to bear witness to this calamity.
Civilization's failure must be put on public display so that we can all see the dark side of humanity and hopefully learn.
Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceMr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the House and Canadians the announcement today by the solicitor general, and my support for his decision to reinvest $115 million in upgrading and modernizing the RCMP's CPIC computer system.
The Canadian Police Information Centre was created following federal-provincial meetings in 1966 to increase information sharing in the fight against organized crime. I am proud to say that my father played a prominent role in those meetings some 33 years ago.
Today CPIC is operated by the RCMP on behalf of all Canadian law enforcement. It contains millions of records on criminals, missing persons, vehicles, stolen property, registered firearms and crime scene information. It is the primary tool used to identify suspects, to access outstanding warrants and restraining orders, to screen out sex offenders from jobs involving contact with children and to flag files of dangerous offenders. It annually handles over 100 million enquiries from 15,000 points of access.
This investment will enhance speed of access, data bases, allow transmission of digital photographs and fingerprints. This means better crime prevention—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Matapédia—Matane.
Organ DonationsMr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with 14 donations per million inhabitants, the rate of organ donation in Canada is among the lowest in the world.
As a consequence, only one person in two will benefit from an organ transplant and have a longer life expectancy as a result, while 140 less fortunate persons will die.
In 1989, the rate of organ donation in Spain was comparable to the present Canadian rate. It is now at about 30 per million inhabitants. Besides ranking first in the world for organ donations, Spain also has the lowest mortality rate in the world for people waiting for an organ transplant.
National Organ Donation Week, which is coming to an end, allowed us to raise public awareness, but we must also give ourselves the means to identify rapidly potential organ donors.
This social issue must be supported by real political will. We must be responsive to all those people waiting for a transplant, because the gift of an organ is a gift of life after life.
Bloc QuebecoisMrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this morning the Leader of the Bloc entered into the fray on the issue of a step-by-step referendum process, by taking position against this trick of Guy Bouthillier and Denis Monière with respect to the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada.
Indeed, there was enough for everyone last weekend. The Bloc Leader joined the hardline separatists by opposing a scenario of asking Quebeckers to vote on a special status for Quebec.
The Bloc takes a radical stand on the future of Quebec. It advocates the independence of Quebec, which was rejected twice by Quebeckers: first in 1980 and again in 1995.
While those academic discussions are going on, our Liberal government opted for a practical solution and is dealing with one issue at a time to improve Canadian federalism.
Vive le Canada.
Liberal Party Of CanadaMr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the more the years pass, the more things remain the same as far as Liberals are concerned.
One hundred years ago, newspapers in western Canada were complaining about the indifference of the Liberal government to the needs of the west.
Wilfrid Laurier, against the wishes and advice of western Canada, reduced the ranks and efficiency of the mounted police. Unlike more recent Liberal prime ministers, at least Laurier had the integrity to admit he had made a mistake.
What was the concern expressed by westerners 100 years ago? That cattle and horse thieves would run rampant without effective policing. What are the concerns of the west today? That drug dealers, criminal refugee claimants and organized crime is running rampant without effective policing.
History shows time and time again that the Liberals do not care what happens in the west just as long as we keep sending our tax dollars to Ottawa.
They made the point 100 years ago, and it is still valid. The Liberals do not have, and never had, the interests of the western half of the nation at heart.
The EnvironmentMr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of Waterloo and the Elora Centre for Environmental Excellence for a recent funding announcement made by the Ministers of the Environment and Natural Resources.
The announcement gives $220,000 in funding under the climate change action fund to implement the Residential Energy Efficiency Program, REEP.
It is through the climate change action fund that the federal government is taking concrete steps to engage and inform Canadians in partnerships that will lead to a greater understanding of climate change.
The REEP is a community-based program set up to inform homeowners on energy efficiency and the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Using the “EnerGuide for Houses” rating system, REEP will conduct audits to determine energy performance of homes in the area. This information will help identify how to improve a house's energy efficiency. Four thousand audits, representing 5% of the detached homes in Kitchener—Waterloo will be completed.
Again, congratulations to the University of Waterloo—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
ArmeniaPat Martin: Mr. Speaker, on April 24 Armenian Canadians and Armenians everywhere will commemorate the 84th anniversary of the 1915 Armenian genocide. As an expression of solidarity, I offer my deepest sympathies to the Armenian people and I share their grief.
Far too often in this century, we have witnessed the incredible cruelty that humans can inflict on one another. The Armenian genocide of 1915 at the hands of the Ottoman Turks was the first genocide of the 20th century but certainly and sadly not the last.
Modern Turkey has yet to recognize this serious crime, which has already been recognized by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the European Parliament, and several other countries. Here at home this genocide has been formally recognized by the Quebec National Assembly and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is far overdue that this Liberal government do the same in the House of Commons.
I urge all hon. members of the House to recognize the Armenian genocide. I extend my most heartfelt wishes to the Armenian people on this tragic anniversary. Let every one of us recognize—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
National Volunteer WeekMs. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, several thousand Quebec volunteers make a significant and constructive contribution to the community. I am pleased to recognize the invaluable work of these volunteers within organizations that are essential to our society's well-being.
I am very grateful to those people of all ages and from all walks of life for the unassuming work they do with non profit organizations, citizens groups, schools, sports organizations and numerous associations.
The number of volunteers in my riding and throughout Quebec is impressive. They respond generously to the ever increasing demand for their services. Today marks the end of National Volunteer Week, and I want to take this opportunity to thank, congratulate and pay tribute to these people.
In particular, I want to recognize the exceptional work volunteers do with the disadvantaged in my riding of Louis-Hébert. With very limited resources, they manage to help children, teenagers, mothers, those who are hospitalized, persons who are losing their autonomy and those who are abandoned.
Their salary is the smile they get from the people they help. Congratulations—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. Catharines.
Fatima BasicMr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to honour a citizen of St. Catharines who has truly made a difference, an individual who has dedicated her life to helping others and specifically, to helping children around the world.
This tireless volunteer and dedicated Canadian is Fatima Basic. Fatima is presently the president of the Bosnian Children Relief.
Created in 1992, Bosnian Children Relief is a Canadian humanitarian organization dedicated to relieving the suffering of children and their families in war-torn Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Most recently, Fatima Basic has issued an urgent appeal for food, medicine, blankets, hygienic products and financial donations for the refugees fleeing Kosovo.
Fatima Basic recently received the International Helen Prize for her work to promote harmony and understanding around the world. This award is a well deserved honour that recognizes her many years of tireless dedication to the children and people of former Yugoslavia.
Today it is my honour and pleasure to share the work of Fatima Basic with my colleagues in the House and to congratulate her on her award. I thank her for her dedication, her spirit and the many lives she has aided over the years.
Rosemarie KuptanaMs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate a constituent, Rosemarie Kuptana, who was promoted within the Order of Canada to the position of officer for her continuing work to advance Inuit culture and her leadership on human rights. She played a significant role in securing for Aboriginal peoples an equal participation with other Canadians in national constitutional and political processes.
As president of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, she worked with other leaders to advance self-government for aboriginal peoples. She has represented her people internationally and distinguished herself as an effective organizer, spokesperson and advocate.
Congratulations.
World Book And Copyright DayMr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today is World Book and Copyright Day. Proclaimed by UNESCO in 1995, this day is inspired by a wonderful Catalan tradition dating back to 1926. On April 23 of each year, people exchange books and roses.
Honouring in its own way this wonderful tradition, the Liberal government persists in maintaining a 7% tax on books, even though the Liberals promised to abolish the GST on reading material during the 1993 election campaign.
On this day celebrating books and authors, the Bloc Quebecois wants to remind the government that books are invaluable treasures for Quebec and Canadian culture. They are also the best way to pass on our knowledge to the next generations. Books—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey Central.
Nisga'A TreatyMr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to give the government fair warning not to use its majority in the House to invoke closure or time allocation in order to pass the Nisga'a treaty, trashing democracy like the NDP government has done in B.C. this week.
This Liberal government had better not slam the door on Canadians who want to debate this treaty. It should at least listen to its B.C. Liberal cousins.
The government should not even introduce the Nisga'a treaty in the House because the people of B.C. have not had a democratic say on the treaty.
For over 100 years the Nisga'a people have been waiting for fair and equitable compensation. Let us do it right and in the right way. Why the big rush?
The official opposition challenges the government to have a free vote in the House on the treaty because it is a precedent that will have national implications.
We do not want one problem solved and 10 more problems created.
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in September 1995 Dudley George was killed. The United Nations calls it an extrajudicial killing and recommends a public inquiry.
First nations people are homeless, die on the streets and are crowded into ramshackle houses. Chiefs have to go on hunger strikes for medicine and doctors. The UN calls on Canada to take our commitment to human rights seriously.
When it comes to Canada's commitment to NATO, we respond quickly, politically and with money to back it up. But when it comes to the United Nations call to protect our own citizens, we do not respond with the same force.
Pictou CountyMr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge the exemplary efforts of the Pictou Regional Development Commission in my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
The goal of PRDC is to consolidate Pictou county as one of the leading commercial and industrial areas of Atlantic Canada. It does this through its highly qualified team of professionals who strive for corporate success.
Several international corporations earning billions of dollars in annual revenues have found Pictou county to be an excellent and profitable base for their operations. These same industries have been responsible for generating a diverse range of opportunities for businesses of all sizes.
Geographically, Pictou county is ideally situated for businesses that rely on effective distribution networks. The county contains links by sea, road, rail and air that connect directly with destinations across North America. A number of commercial and industrial properties in Pictou county have on-site rail access providing access and efficient transportation to destinations throughout North America.
I congratulate PRDC for its valuable community contributions. It is organizations like that which continue to work toward the betterment of our area and our province. Their work is noticed and appreciated.

Oral Question Period
KosovoMr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today it has been reported that Slobodan Milosevic has made a hollow offer to end the crisis in the Balkans that does not live up to the NATO conditions.
It is clear that Canada's resolve on the NATO campaign must remain absolute and that we must continue to adequately prepare our military. Has the government set aside the necessary funds to properly equip our troops for the escalating NATO campaign? Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House today that the already cash strapped defence budget will not be completely tasked with this increase in commitment?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government will have the funds available to carry out the obligations we have and whatever obligations which may come along later with respect to our involvement in the NATO initiative to return the Kosovars safely to Kosovo.
Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, I will take that answer and put it in my expanding this government has no plan file.
At today's NATO summit in Washington, Canada will be asked to escalate its military commitment to the campaign. Since the government has no plans for new funding for our troops and our military is already cash strapped, how exactly does the government expect our military to carry out a campaign that could be bigger than the Korean conflict?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is totally wrong. We are looking at whatever hypothetical possibilities might arise. Funds will be assigned as required to carry out what the ultimate decisions will be.
Canada is an active participant in the discussions taking place at NATO. We will participate in the consensus. Whatever the obligations will be on Canada as a result of that renewed consensus, the funds will be there.
We will not be aiming at cutting expenditures, as was the case in the Reform budget put forward as part of its platform in the 1997 election.
Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows full well that statement is 100% pure balderdash.
The vague answers to critically important preparedness and funding questions raise more and more doubts about the government's commitment to our troops.
Last April the auditor general pointed out that the government has failed to give our ground forces adequate funding to modernize equipment. He said that our infantry and armour could be detected, engaged and defeated long before our troops even knew that the enemy was present.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister stand in his place today and pretend that our troops are being properly equipped when the government has not announced a single funding measure—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question shows how empty and ridiculous the Reform position is. How can we talk about the funding that is required before we know exactly what further activities we may have to be engaged in as part of the NATO alliance?
We are proceeding in an active and vigorous way to support our troops and to be part of the alliance. We should not be throwing around numbers before we know exactly what further activities we may be called on to carry out.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Liberals walked out of the provincial legislature yesterday in protest over the NDP's unprecedented move to cut off debate on the Nisga'a treaty. Liberal leader Gordon Campbell called the NDP's strong-arm tactics “exceptional in the extreme and an assault on our democratic institutions”. Liberal MLA Mike de Jong blasted Clark's government for imposing a “draconian and sinister closure motion”.
Will the government commit here and now to tell Glen Clark that ratification in this House will not proceed until the democratic institutions of British Columbia have been respected?
The Speaker: Order, please. That question is out of order. The hon. member may wish to go to his second question.
Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, B.C. Liberals have walked out of the legislature in protest over the NDP strong-arm tactics in invoking closure and time allocation on an unprecedented treaty that is going to affect the entire country.
We want to know is this government going to respect the democratic institutions of British Columbia and the democratic wish of the people of British Columbia to have a say on this treaty and a full debate, or is it going to bring in the treaty in lockstep with Glen Clark's government?
The Speaker: On the first part of the question, it is not within the purview of this parliament to make a statement with regard to what goes on in the British Columbia house. However, on the second part of the question, I find that it is in order and I will permit the Deputy Prime Minister to respond, if he so wishes.
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, our obligation is to respect the democratic procedures of the Parliament of Canada. That is what we are doing. That is what we are going to do.
KosovoMr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the NATO secretary general called on the allied countries to update their ground intervention plans for Kosovo.
In order for these plans to be updated, they have to already exist, naturally. And so the probability of operations increases daily, and we have here a government that appears to be being dragged along.
Does Canada have ground intervention plans for Kosovo and, if so, does it plan to update them as requested by the Secretary General of NATO?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, we have policy objectives to pursue at the NATO discussions at the present time. They involve support for the five NATO conditions.
We underline the importance of a creative diplomatic solution. We maintain support for the air campaign. We affirm the readiness of Canadian peacekeepers to support a peace settlement. We have a definite position that we are bringing forward at the discussions at NATO. I hope we continue to have the support of the House of Commons for this sensible and important position.
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, if I understand properly, the Secretary General of NATO will get no answer. Once again, the information we get comes from sources outside Canada.
In 1991, we voted on sending in troops, while the war was being carried on television. Is the government not running the risk of putting us in an even worse situation than in 1991, as we would be debating, without the opportunity of voting this time, the deployment of troops to Kosovo and watching the war and the lives of our soldiers put in danger on television?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, at this point the hon. member's questions are entirely speculative and hypothetical.
The Prime Minister said that the situation was changing, there would be other debates in the House of Commons and that he might reconsider the matter of a vote.
For the moment, the situation raised by the hon. member is totally hypothetical.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Russia attempted a diplomatic breakthrough with the Milosevic government, with a plan that provides for the sending of a civilian peacekeeping force under the UN.
However, the terms set by Belgrade do not meet NATO's minimum requirements to end the air strikes.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does Canada intend to use that opportunity created by Russia to resume diplomatic efforts, or has the government given up any hope for a peaceful resolution of the conflict?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, we certainly welcome the efforts of Russian special envoy Viktor Chernomyrdin. We have always said that the Russians should be part of the solution to Kosovo.
We have yet to see the full details of what was discussed between Mr. Chernomyrdin and President Milosevic. Indications are that what has been discussed falls well short of what is required. I think that has to be taken into account in considering the reports of what was discussed between Chernomyrdin and Milosevic yesterday.
René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, since Canada is a member of NATO, the G-8 and the security council, why is it not the one showing leadership and innovation on the diplomatic front?
Why do we look like we are following everyone as regards this conflict, whether it is in terms of humanitarian, military, political or diplomatic initiatives?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the UN security council, we undertook discussions with the permanent members of the security council, to try to find a diplomatic solution. At this point, it is obvious that any initiative from the security council would be vetoed by one of its permanent members.
This is why we must continue our active participation in NATO's efforts.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are hopeful that the Russian initiative will lead to an exchange of proposals and ultimately a diplomatic solution to the Kosovo crisis.
My question is simple and straightforward. Does Canada support the Russian initiative and if so, is that the message that Canada is taking to NATO this weekend?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that we welcome the efforts of Russian special envoy Chernomyrdin but we have to look at the proposal in detail.
At the moment the reports as to what the Russians understand the proposal to be and what the Serbians understand it to be are contradictory. Indications are that the proposal falls well short of what is required.
We are going to carry forward in our discussions at NATO the importance of creating a diplomatic solution. The hon. member is wrong in asking us to rubber stamp what may or may not be the Milosevic proposal.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking rubber stamping.
The Prime Minister has stated again and again that Russia's participation is key in finding a diplomatic solution. There is now an initiative from Russia on the table. Russia is eager to discuss that initiative with NATO. Is Canada urging NATO to respond positively to the Russia's invitation?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that Canada will be actively participating in the discussions at the NATO summit. We will be stressing the importance of creating a diplomatic solution.
I do not know what more the hon. member expects from us. She seems to be pushing for a rubber stamping of this initiative by President Milosevic. That does not make any sense.
Correctional Service CanadaPeter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, with the Liberals' 50/50 release plan for prisoners rolling along and a plan to release more prisoners this year than ever before, Tuesday's auditor general's report made startling revelations of lengthy delays in processing, senior corrections officers who are not performing their case management and offenders programming failing to meet expectations. With public safety at risk this is disgraceful.
It appears that Corrections Canada has cut corners in its haste to meet this 50/50 quota deadline. If rehabilitation is the priority, will the solicitor general please explain why Corrections Canada has received a failing grade?
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that any human system can be improved on, and I am pleased to see that the hon. member is prepared to help us in that regard.
But if the member wants to quote the auditor general, he should also mention the positive comments made by the auditor general about our efforts, including improved training for officers, information on program costs, program effectiveness evaluation, surveillance in the communities, risk assessment in the case of offenders, lessons learned and shared, and the management of social reintegration activities. These are the good things that are done by Correctional Service Canada.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I guess the response is that we take the good with the bad.
Employment programs are crucial to the reintegration of offenders into society. According to the auditor general, Corrections Canada is not offering proper employment opportunities that will achieve that goal. In fact CSC cannot even manage its own finances. It receives $18 million annually yet continues to be a money losing venture.
What steps are the solicitor general's office taking to alleviate this and other glaring problems outlined in this scathing report from the auditor general?
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that less attention is being paid to the answers given that to the upcoming questions.
To answer my colleague's question, I just want to go back to one point. In his report, the auditor general deals primarily with the management of social reintegration activities, and he acknowledges the very significant and impressive progress made by Correctional Service Canada.
PensionsMr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, first the government pirated the worker's EI fund for $26 billion and now it has its sights set on the $30 billion public pension fund surplus.
Is no fund safe from the government? Does it not realize the dangerous precedent it is setting with these moves?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are not setting a precedent; we are merely following the law.
We have a legislative plan where all the benefits are guaranteed to the employees. We are not only guaranteeing the benefits to the employees in terms of their pension plans but we are increasing these benefits.
Over the years it has only been the taxpayers who have shared the risk and who have paid for it. When the plan was indexed there was an additional liability of $8 billion. Every cent of it was paid for by taxpayers, so there is no doubt, no legal doubt and no accounting doubt, that the surplus belongs to Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal law is pay more, get less. That is their law. They have scooped $26 billion from the EI surplus and now they will raid another $30 billion surplus from the public service pension fund. It is not their money.
Why are the Liberals so intent on destroying the security of Canadians' pension plans by constantly raiding surpluses? And they have their eyes on another $30 billion. It is not their money.
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by the position of the Reform Party. I am more than surprised; I am sad. I am really sad because this money belongs to Canadian taxpayers.
This is the party that has been telling people that it will defend their interest. This is the party that has been telling people that it would try to reduce the debt. The government is doing what is right and what is legal by giving back to Canadian taxpayers what belongs to them, and the Reform Party of all parties has the temerity and the audacity, which really makes me sad, to try to steal that money from the Canadian taxpayer.
The Speaker: Order, please. We are getting new words today like pirated, raided, scooped, and now I draw the line at steal. I would prefer we do not use that word in the House of Commons.
Canadian Hockey Association Women's National TeamCaroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, to general surprise and for no discernable reason, the Canadian Hockey Association Women's National Team's head trainer, Danièle Sauvageau, who led the Canadian team to a gold medal at the world championships, has just be replaced, for no good reason, by a westerner.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us whether she is comfortable with the association's decision, which looks, once again, like discrimination against athletes and trainers from Quebec?
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, the organization to which the member refers is an independent one that makes its own decisions, and I am surprised that the member would call for the government to interfere.
Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, that does not usually stop the government from interfering.
Women's hockey is the most recent example of practices that look like discrimination against Quebeckers: there is handball, synchronized swimming, and the exclusive use of English in sports federations and in presentations by the Canadian Olympic Association.
Will the minister at least demand an explanation from the Canadian Hockey Association Women's National Team, which receives public funding, part of which, I would remind her, comes from Quebec?
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, the government's position on official languages and linguistic duality is very well known. Unfortunately, on a number of occasions, some organizations that receive federal government funding have not shown all the respect they should for linguistic duality and the official languages.
If this is the point the member opposite is raising, we will be pleased to look into the matter and to remind these organizations of their obligations.
Atlantic Canada Opportunities AgencyMr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, another day, another ACOA scam. TAGS and ACOA dole out $310,000 to Roger Birmingham for a meat store in St. John's, Newfoundland, and he goes bankrupt. Then he reopens his doors and picks up a new partner, former Mayor Bob Whiffin. Surprise, he gets hundreds of thousands of dollars more. The same location, the same business, the same old sad story.
Was it right to use taxpayer dollars to restart this failed business? Yes or no.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the Reform has it all wrong. First, there is no relationship of one money to the other. Second, the money was indeed used to expand on a smokehouse operation. It looked good at the time.
As the hon. member knows ACOA does have less than success in some of its operations, but I have to tell him that our failure rate in ACOA is less than 9%, which is lower than they are in the polls, which is very low.
Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I can let the hon. minister know what their relationship is. They all have to do with the waste of taxpayer dollars, clear and simple.
We have heard it before from him, but something is rotten in that meat store. Birmingham and Whiffin are getting another $100,000 and they are waiting for two more grants.
There is something the minister can do right here and now. He can stop the $100,000 and deny the other applications. Will the minister cut the fat?
Fred Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, there is something the hon. member can do and that is stop criticizing an organization that produces in excess of 10,000 jobs a year for Atlantic Canada. Will he do it?
Young Offenders ActMrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Quebec Minister of Justice, Linda Goupil, spoke out against the punitive character of the federal Young Offenders Act, because it threatens the preventive approach developed by Quebec and because the Quebec model, with its focus on rehabilitation, might be forced unwillingly into becoming as repressive as the prevailing legislation in Canada.
Since there is a consensus within Quebec that young offenders need help rather than punishment, does the government intend to respond favourably to that consensus and to exclude Quebec from application of its bill?
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by making the same statement I made in committee. The situation in Quebec with respect to young offenders and the province's accomplishments in preventing youth crime are totally remarkable.
That said, the bill before us at this time contains all the flexibility necessary to both pay tribute to what Quebec is doing and ensure that the public is better protected everywhere in this country.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, this flexibility is just a charade. In actual fact, the effect of this bill will be a gradual and inevitable undermining of the foundations of the Quebec system for young offenders.
Does the government realize that the philosophy of its bill runs counter to, and in fact is even a threat to, the Quebec model, which works best of all the systems in Canada and which has made the most reduction in youth crime, as my hon. colleague has acknowledged?
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, if I am asked questions based on facts, then I can respond with facts. If I am asked questions based on speculations, then I have no answer at all.
They presume that the courts will decide. They presume that the Quebec program will be undermined. They presume that we will abandon prevention to focus on cracking down on crime. I cannot provide any answer to that.
HealthMr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health said that he would wait until the end of the year before he responded to the health committee's report on organ transplantation. If he waits until the end of the year, 100 Canadians will be dead.
Will the minister show leadership and implement the constructive suggestions in the report within the next three months, before these people die?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all I would say to the hon. member that the minister said nothing of the sort.
What the minister said yesterday was that because of his personal commitment he was the one who asked the committee to undertake this mandate to determine how Canada could raise its organ donation rate so that all those people who are anxiously awaiting organs in this country would have hope that organs would be available for them when they need them.
The committee spent very valuable and important time over a long period working hard on the committee report. Part of the recommendations is that the minister work in co-operation with his provincial colleagues. I would say to the member—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey Central.
Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceGurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, in the last two years the government has not delivered the funds to the RCMP in Surrey that it said it would.
The government is underfunding the RCMP and that is why it is refusing to divulge the figures. This has seriously reduced RCMP services and destroyed morale.
Will the solicitor general immediately provide the city of Surrey with a detailed and accurate accounting of the government's funding before that city files a lawsuit against the government?
Jacques Saada: I could not dream of any better question and I will take advantage of it to reinforce the announcement that has just been made by the Solicitor General of Canada.
He has just announced $115 million to reinforce the Canadian Police Information Centre, commonly called the CPIC. I thank my colleague for giving me this opportunity.
Aerospace IndustryMr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Madeleine Albright agreed on a 120 day period of reflection to review the American decision on our aerospace and defence exports.
Is the Minister for International Trade prepared to consult and involve the Government of Quebec in its discussions and considerations, given that Quebec will be severely affected if the Americans carry out their trade restrictions plan?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly the Government of Canada welcomes the decision by the Government of the United States to sit down and talk about this issue.
It is the government's intention in doing this to consult the industry and all those involved in Canada that have an interest in it. We will certainly put forward a united position on this issue.
AgricultureMr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many farmers in western Canada suffered a dramatic downturn in their incomes last year and are looking forward to receiving help from the agriculture income disaster assistance program. However, they will have to fill out the application forms by June 15, right in the middle of seeding.
What can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food do to help out these farmers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out the other day, the forms are only seven pages long and can be filled out reasonably quickly by farmers or their accountants.
We have had 43 training sessions in Saskatchewan and Manitoba alone. Over 1,400 farmers have attended. Over 200 accountants have attended information sessions as well.
Today I have announced that we will be extending the deadline to July 30, because we do know that it is a busy time of year.
JusticeMr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as the justice committee completes its review of the victims rights bill, a piece of legislation premised on compassion and closure for all victims of crime and their families, the supreme court yesterday rejected an anguished plea by the family victims of the Bernardo murders and is allowing the videotapes of those brutal murders to be viewed by the public.
Will the government add one clause to Bill C-79, to put these videotapes under lock and key and show the supreme court that parliamentarians have compassion for victims, even if it does not?
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, the supreme court decided on these video tapes. The decision does not mean that the tapes will be made public. They are considered evidence in the matter.
Accordingly, the tapes are being kept in a sealed container, and there was never any question of their becoming public. It would be a mistake to do either of two things. The first would be to assume that, because of the decision, they would be made public. The other would be to want to use something as tragic as what befell these people and their families for political gain.
Tobacco IndustryTed White: Mr. Speaker, tobacco executives in the United States have recently been convicted and fined huge sums of money for helping to smuggle cigarettes back into Canada through the Akwesasne reserve.
With the case already proven in the United States, and plenty of evidence that RJR was involved in Canada, Canadians do not want to be told that the RCMP are still investigating the matter. They want action.
Why have Canadian tobacco executives not been charged? Why is the government negotiating a cash settlement behind closed doors with executives who are golfing buddies of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance?
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, members will permit my not commenting on the tone of the question, but going rather to the substance of the matter.
The substance of the matter is as follows. The RCMP negotiates nothing. It accumulates evidence it will subsequently pass on to the crown, which then decides accordingly.
So it is time to stop implying that the RCMP is negotiating. It gathers evidence for the crown.
Employment InsuranceMrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr. Speaker, government reports have finally confirmed that women and young people have been hit the hardest by the changes to the EI.
The government's own figures show EI claims by women are down 20% since the last changes. They also show only 44% of Canadian women are now eligible for maternity benefits. More than half of Canadian women do not qualify.
If the government is not interested in changing the EI legislation, what will it do to address the discrimination against women that it created and that its report has now acknowledged?
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, we are as concerned as the member opposite about these findings from the EI monitoring and assessment report. That is why officials of HRDC are now investigating the situation to try to gain a clear understanding of the reasons for these numbers.
We have also accepted the generous offer of the Canadian Labour Congress to help us by bringing to us some of its frontline examples and stories to assist officials to get to the bottom of this issue. We do not want to start making changes until we really understand the whys and wherefores of these numbers.
PensionsMs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the human resource minister does not care if EI changes have hit women the hardest.
Women are also the biggest losers in the government's pension plan grab. There are women who have worked for 20 years and receive less than $10,000 a year in pension. Now the finance minister says “I want their pension surplus”. Does the government have no shame?
The pension surplus grab is at the expense of seniors, RCMP members and military personnel, government workers who have served our country for years. They are taxpayers. Money they receive is spent in their communities. Why is the government taking it away?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, once again this is money that belongs to taxpayers. The government guarantees all pension benefits of all public servants, everything they have earned and everything they have bargained for. Everything that was in their contract with the government will be implemented.
These people, the seniors, men and women, will receive the exact benefits they were promised under the law. The law guarantees them these benefits and the surplus, as the lawyers, the accountants, the auditor general and the actuaries say, belongs to taxpayers.
Government InfrastructureMark Muise: Mr. Speaker, when the Canadian Coast Guard decides to decommission a lighthouse, Public Works Canada must offer the structure first to another federal government department, followed by the provincial and then municipal governments, before it is opened to public tender.
My question is for the minister. Could non-profit organizations interested in lighthouse preservation be offered these abandoned structures prior to their being opened to public tender?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the policy is very clear. When we decide that we have a property we do not need any more, we have to offer it to the provincial authorities and then the municipal authorities. If there is no demand from that side then we have to offer it to the public.
If the hon. member has some other organizations that are interested, I am sure we could negotiate and through the tendering process look at their offers as we usually do.
Fisheries And OceansMark Muise: Mr. Speaker, last summer during a visit to my riding the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans promised that local DFO officers would be receiving two new jet boats to help them in their fight against illegal lobster poaching operations in St. Mary's Bay.
Could the minister tell us when we can expect these vessels to arrive?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the specifics of that particular case. I do know that we are increasing enforcement officers in some areas and trying to ensure that the fishery is there for the future.
I will check into the specifics of that case and get back to the member.
The EnvironmentMr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was Earth Day. We know that if we do not work together to protect our planet many species will reach extinction, the earth's climate will warm up, and the health of humans will be put into jeopardy.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment tell the House what she is doing to make sure that the earth continues to be a healthy place to live for all of us and for the generations to follow?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each day the Minister of the Environment and everyone in the government are working hard to protect the environment for Canadians for today and for the future.
This particular week, together with her cabinet colleagues, the minister announced several important initiatives. Canada signed the ozone annex with the United States. We announced 55 recovery projects for endangered species, the most ever announced in one year, and funding was announced for a grassroots campaign, the ABCs of climate change.
All Canadians are invited to join with the Minister of the Environment in celebrating the first ever Clean Air Day Canada on June 2.
TradeMr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is a huge threat to Canadian jobs as a result of renewed protectionist measures by the U.S. to reclassify specialty wood products away from free trade.
There has been no visible political action on this issue. Canadian trade officials have been meeting in Washington since Wednesday, but the government has known about this threat since early March.
How long do concerned forest workers and their families have to wait for the government to act?
Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, these issues are bilateral issues and issues on which we take very great care to consult with not only the industry, not only the provinces involved, but certainly with the workers and those affected by such industries.
The Government of Canada has taken full action on all these different attacks by the American government. I can assure the hon. member and the people of British Columbia, with whom we sympathize with the downturn in the economy there, that the Government of Canada will continue to fight on their behalf.
The HomelessMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to a recent study by Santé Québec, approximately 28,000 people have used the system of shelters for the homeless, and attended soup kitchens and drop-in centres in 1998, and that was just in Montreal. Clearly, the numbers of homeless are unprecedented.
Is the minister prepared to entertain the request from the Réseau d'aide aux personnes seules et itinérantes de Montréal to transfer funds to the provinces so that they can provide social housing with community support, yes or no?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to inform the hon. member that I am not the minister for the homeless.
I am the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister has asked me to examine federal programs with a view to finding solutions to the problems of the homeless.
I also wish to inform the hon. member that I intend to meet with the mayor of Montreal to see exactly what sort of program he would like, and how federal programs can help.
The EnvironmentMr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment when she said what were the achievements of her minister.
It has been almost eight months since the minister came to Sydney, Nova Scotia, to sign a memorandum of understanding to clean up the tar ponds in Cape Breton. Since then and during those eight months not a single thing has been done by the government.
Why was there no specific commitment in the recent Liberal budget to clean up the tar ponds? Why was it not one of the initiatives that the Minister of the Environment announced which were just referred to? When will the government honour its commitment to the people of Cape Breton, to the people of Canada and to the environment?
Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, there were several initiatives in the last budget specifically for the environment. We were one of the only departments that got special funds specifically for toxic substances.
With regard to the tar ponds, we are actively negotiating a cost share agreement with the municipal and provincial partners. We are working with a joint action group to identify the solutions and to implement those solutions so the people who live there will have healthier lives.
Canada PostMr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, we heard the startling revelation yesterday that Canada Post, which already has a massive presence in the courier industry, has just gobbled up what was left of Purolator Courier.
This means that the Government of Canada now owns more than 50% of the courier industry in Canada. Before the government buys out or puts out of business the rest of this industry, will the minister encourage the Competition Bureau to review this further intrusion into the private sector?
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, let me inform the hon. member and the House that most international postal organizations have over the past few years acquired courier companies, whether it is in France, in Germany, in England or elsewhere.
Canada Post and Purolator Courier operate in total independence with two different boards of directors. In 1998 the Competition Bureau assessed the situation and said that there was no cross-subsidization. Every year the government requires Canada Post to hire an auditing firm to conduct an audit to certify every year its financial statement. There is no—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Canada's response to the RCAP report “Gathering Strength” notes that building strong first nations requires good governance practices that are open and accountable.
What progress are the first nations and their partners making on ensuring the implementation of these important principles?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, building accountable and sustainable first nations communities is a priority for the government as it is for first nations themselves.
Of particular note is a two day symposium that will be held next week in Saskatchewan hosted by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations precisely on this topic. There will be officials from the federal and provincial governments there, as well as chiefs and members from first nations communities across the country.
Most interesting is the fact that the auditor general has been invited and I believe he plans to attend. It is this kind of partnership that will allow us to continuously improve accountability in first nations and ensure they have sustainability into the future.
JusticeJohn Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another question of the parliamentary secretary, a very dedicated member and a gentleman I have a lot of faith in. In his last answer he said that these tapes were locked up. I would like to advise him that the lawyers on the case yesterday before the supreme court said “the tapes could potentially crop up again”. That does not treat victims well.
Will the government add one clause to Bill C-79 to put these videotapes under lock and key so we can show the supreme court that parliamentarians care about victims, even if it does not?
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, I reject outright the statement made on that side of the House that unless we agree with them we do not care about victims. I reject that allegation.
The supreme court has made a decision. I trust the text of that decision more than I trust the hearsay of any lawyer or especially any politician trying to make political gains on something for which I feel sorry.
Air TransportationMr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in order to justify the government's failure to do anything about the troubling issue of air transportation, the minister announced that the Transportation Safety Board was now conducting an investigation into the situation. We checked and found out that the results of this investigation will not be available for at least a year.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. How many planes will have to crash before the minister realizes that his cost-benefit approach to Nav Canada is endangering people's lives?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member and other members of the House of Commons that the ministry of transportation is putting safety factors as a top priority within the department and is investigating all crashes. To date, we have not received any report from the Transportation Safety Board. However. when we receive those reports we will definitely share them with all members of the House of Commons.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear members of the Reform Party asking the government to overrule a provincial legislature. These are the same people who portray themselves as defenders of provincial rights.
Will the minister of Indian affairs commit to the House today that the government will not be intimidated by the Reform Party or, for that matter, by the actions of its provincial cousins and bring in the legislation to implement the Nisga'a treaty, live up to the signed commitment that she made on behalf of the people of Canada and see that justice is finally done and soon?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the support that the NDP has for the Nisga'a treaty. It understands that it will bring certainty to the lands in British Columbia. It understands that it will bring significant investment not only for the Nisga'a First Nation but for the communities around it. It understands that, through this very historic treaty, 100 years of history, not necessarily good history, can be reconciled.
Together we are welcoming the Nisga'a First Nation into Canada as true and full partners.
Canada PostGilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, in 1996 the Liberal government's own Canada Post mandate review recommended that for the good of the industry Canada Post should sell off its ownership of Purolator Courier and get out of the courier business.
Why is the Government of Canada involved in an industry that is already well served by the private sector?
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, there was a study done and it made lots of recommendations. One of the recommendations was not to close the post office.
Does the member now advocate that we should close the rural post offices so that we can sell Purolator? It is very important for Canada Post to have a commercial mandate so that we can keep our postal system intact in every community.
The Speaker: That would bring to a close our question period today.
While it is not the custom of the Chair to give reasons for decisions taken in question period, I did rule a question out of order today. If memory serves me correctly, I would refer the hon. member for Skeena, who asked me about it via a note, to Beauchesne's fourth edition, 171(y) and Beauchesne's sixth edition, 409(b) for the answer to his question.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response To PetitionsWalt Lastewka: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions.
Interparliamentary DelegationsBill Graham: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 31(4), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association (OSCE) to the meeting of the Parliamentary Association of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe held in Paris, France on March 5, 1999.
Whistle Blowers Protection ActPat Martin: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-499, an act respecting the protection of whistle blowers and to amend the Auditor General Act, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

Madam Speaker, the bill that I have introduced today deals with whistle blowers protection for public service employees.
Workers in the public sector who may have some knowledge of wrongdoing are often reluctant to come forward for fear of experiencing some discipline from their employer. This bill would protect those who have good reason to believe in good faith that there is some wrongdoing perhaps taking place in their workplace. These employees would be able to feel comfortable in reporting this suspected wrongdoing without any fear of reprisals.
Reports would be made to the auditor general who would then evaluate the merits of the case to see if the complaint had any substance, and also to make sure that the complaint was not made out of malice but made out of good faith so as not to be a nuisance complaint.
The bill would in no way diminish the common law principle of the obligation of loyalty to the employer. In fact, most good employers would welcome having this opportunity to gain inside knowledge of their workplace and, especially as government, real cost savings may be involved.
I would hope to get broad support in the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
PetitionsMac Harb: Madam Speaker, as a consequence of death, separation or divorce, grandparents sometimes have difficulty having access to their grandchildren by the guardian.
Many jurisdictions have allowed provisions where grandparents could have access to their grandchildren without having to go to court.
The petitioners want parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include the provision, as supported in Bill C-340, whereby grandparents do not have to go to court in order to have access to their grandchildren.
Questions On The Order PaperWalt Lastewka: The following questions will be answered today: Nos. 166, 167 and 216. .[Text]
Question No. 166—
Mr. Rick Casson: With respect to the fifteen Distant Early Warning, DEW, Line radar sites in the Nunavut Territory, could the Minister of National Defence provide: ( a ) the structure of the environmental framework for cleanup; ( b ) the accumulated and estimated cost of cleanup; ( c ) the source of environmental contaminants which have contributed to any environmental degradation; ( d ) the health hazards caused by the environmental contamination; ( e ) the list of companies which have received federal government contracts for cleanup, and for what amounts; and ( f ) the structure of the process used to award contracts?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): (a) The structure of the environmental framework for cleanup: The framework for the cleanup will be in accordance with the agreement between Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Her Majesty in the right of Canada as represented by the Minister of National Defence for the cleanup and restoration of Distant Early Warning sites within the Nunavut settlement area. This agreement was signed in Cambridge Bay on September 1, 1998 and details the environmental provisions to carry out the cleanup.
(b) The accumulated and estimated cost of cleanup: The estimated cost for the sites in Nunavut is $200 million, a figure established in May 1997 which takes into account escalation according to the economic model established by the Department of National Defence, DND. The accumulated cost is $14.2 million, actual expenditures April 1, 1996 when the first site cleanup was started until September 30, 1998. The latter expenditures include project overhead and administration. They also include project management costs that are not part of the contract values listed at (e). For example, some of the major costs included in the accumulated cost total, and not in the contract values, are the scientific delineation of contaminated soil, engineering survey of upcoming sites and project administration costs.
(c) The source of environmental contaminants which have contributed to any environmental degradation: Scientific studies carried out between 1989 and 1994 showed that the environmental contaminants at the sites are the result of waste disposal practices that followed the standards of the day. PCBs and inorganic elements such as copper, lead and zinc, are the contaminants of primary concern in soils and surface waters. Copper, zinc and cadmium are found in sewage outfalls and landfills. Lead is found in petroleum and oil spills. Although PCBs are detectable in virtually every sample collected in the vicinity of the sites, they are present at elevated concentrations primarily in outfalls and to a lesser degree in landfills and stained areas near pallet lines, storage areas, and site buildings. Leachate waters and soils near the base of some landfills contain detectable concentrations of contaminants, indicating drainage from a more concentrated source within the landfill. The remaining contamination is restricted to isolated spills within the area of station operations.
(d) The health hazards caused by the environmental contamination: The cleanup strategy places special emphasis on preventing the movement of chemical contaminants from sources at the DEW Line sites into other parts of the Arctic ecosystem. There are no immediate health risks. The cleanup is designed to prevent migration of contaminants into the arctic food chain and is therefore more stringent than normal protocols in the south. The work will prevent any potential chronic or long term impact on human health and the environment.
(e) The list of companies which have received federal government contracts for cleanup, and for what amounts: Cape Hooper, FOX-4, was awarded to Qikiqtaaluk Corporation of Iqaluit and the value of the contract is $6.8 million. In 1998 the cleanup of Cambridge Bay, CAM-M, was awarded to Kitikmeot Corporation of Cambridge Bay and the value of the contract is $7.3 million. The contract value of $6.8 million for cleanup of Cape Hooper, FOX-4, has been spent. The contract for cleanup of Cambridge Bay, CAM-M, was awarded in late summer of 1998 and only several months of a projected two year cleanup have been completed.
(f) The structure of the process used to award contracts: The contracts awarded in Nunavut were negotiated with regional aboriginal development corporations. This was done to build confidence in the cleanup standard and to develop the expertise of local business so it can compete for future DEW Line cleanup contracts. This practice is in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Nunavut land claims agreement. Future contracts will be conducted in a competitive manner if industry shows sufficient interest in the process by which this is carried out. Should industry not be interested, contracts will be negotiated with the designated Inuvialuit-Inuit firm in such a way as to arrive at a price satisfactory to all concerned parties. The department will strive for openness, fairness and best value in contracting in a matter consistent with the land claim agreements and negotiated co-operation agreements with the aboriginal development corporations.
Question No. 167—
Rick Casson: With respect to the six Distant Early Warning, DEW, Line radar sites in the Inuvialuit region in the Western Artic, could the Minister of National Defence provide: ( a ) a progress report on the cleanup of the sites which are covered under a separate co-operation agreement reached in February 1996; ( b ) the accumulated and estimated cost of cleanup; ( c ) the source of environmental contaminants which have contributed to any environmental degradation; ( d ) the health hazards caused by the environmental contamination; ( e ) the list of companies which have received federal government contracts for cleanup, and for what amounts; and ( f ) the structure of the process used to award contracts?
Art Eggleton: (a) A progress report on the cleanup of the sites that are covered under a separate co-operation agreement reached in February 1996: The cleanup of Tuktoyaktuk, BAR-3, and of Cape Parry, PIN-M, is substantially complete. The cleanup of a fuel farm and two landfills in the Tuktoyaktuk area is planned to begin in 1999. The cleanup of Nicholson peninsula, BAR-4, started in 1998 and will continue in 1999. The cleanup of Komakuk beach, BAR-1, is planned to begin in 1999. The progress of cleanup in the Inuvialuit settlement region has met the work start-up and completion dates shown in the co-operation agreement.
(b) The accumulated and estimated cost of cleanup: The estimated cost for the sites in the Inuvialuit settlement region is $73.4 million, a figure established in May 1997 which takes into account escalation according to the economic model established by the Department of National Defence, DND. The accumulated cost is $24.3 million, actual expenditures April 1, 1996 when the first site cleanup was started until September 30, 1998. The latter expenditures include project overhead and administration. They also include project management costs that are not part of the contract values listed at (e). For example, some of the major costs included in the accumulated cost total, and not in the contract values, are the scientific delineation of contaminated soil, engineering survey of upcoming sites and project adminstration costs.
(c) The source of environmental contaminants which have contributed to any environmental degradation: Scientific studies between 1989 and 1994 showed that the environmental contaminants at the sites were the result of waste disposal practices that followed the standards of the day. PCBs and inorganic elements such as copper, lead and zinc, are the contaminants of primary concern in soils and surface waters. Copper, cadmium and zinc have been generally confined to sewage outfalls and landfills. Lead has been found in petroleum, oil, and lubricant spills. PCB, although detectable in virtually every sample collected in the vicinity of the sites, are present at elevated concentrations primarily in outfalls and to a lesser degree in landfills and stained areas near pallet lines, storage areas, and site buildings. The source is transformer and hydraulic fluids. Leachate waters, and soils near the base of some landfills, contain detectable concentrations of contaminants, indicating drainage from a more concentrated source within the landfills. The remaining contamination appears to be restricted to isolated spills within the area of station operations.
(d) The health hazards caused by the environmental contamination: The cleanup strategy places special emphasis on preventing the movement of chemical contaminants from sources at the DEW Line sites into other parts of the Arctic ecosystem. There are no immediate health risks. The cleanup is designed to prevent migration of contaminants in to the arctic food chain and is therefore more stringent than normal protocols in the south. The work will prevent any potential chronic or long-term impact on human health and the environment.
(e) The list of companies which have received federal governement contracts for cleanup, and for what amounts: Tuktoyaktuk, BAR-3, has been cleaned up by Inuvialuit Projects Incorporated of Inuvik. The value of the contract is $2.8 million. Cape Parry, PIN-M, has been cleaned up by Inuvialuit Projects Incorporated of Inuvik. The value of the contract is $6.2 million. In 1998 the cleanup of Nicholson peninsula, BAR-4, was awarded to Inuvialuit Projects Incorporated and the present value of the contract is $9.5 million. The contract value of $2.8 million for cleanup of Tuktoyaktuk, BAR-3, and the contract value of $6.2 for Cape Parry, PIN-M, have been spent. The contract total of $9.5 million for cleanup of the Nicholson peninsula, BAR-4, has not been completely spent as another year of cleanup through 1999 remains.
(f) The structure of the process used to award contracts: All of the contracts have been publicly tendered through MERX, formerly the open bidding system. Economic provisions form part of the co-operation agreement for the project and are included as part of the contracts. Within the terms of the Inuvialuit final agreement and the co-operation agreement for the project the department will strive for openness, fairness and best value in contracting.
Question No. 216—
Mr. John Solomon: With regard to Bill S-9, an act to amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, passed in the 35th Parliament, how much has been paid for each of the last 11 years by the government of Canada to those who have claimed: ( a ) retroactive benefits for estate taxes paid in the United States; ( b ) tax deductions for contributions to United States postsecondary institutions; and ( c ) tax deductions to United States-based charitable institutions?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): The Department of National Revenue does not record income tax data in ways that would provide the information requested. Foreign tax credits, tuition and charitable donation non-refundable amounts claimed by clients are not segregated by jurisdictions, educational institutions or specific charitable organizations.
Walt Lastewka: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-64, an act to establish an indemnification program for travelling exhibitions, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mark Muise: Madam Speaker, as I was saying prior to question period, museums are more than just an historical account of a time and place within Canadian history. Museums contribute enormously to our local economies.
According to Mr. Robert Janes, president and chief executive officer of Glenbow Museum in Calgary, museums in Canada contribute $1 billion annually to the gross domestic product which includes 35,000 jobs, directly and indirectly, as well as $650 million in labour income. These figures suggest that this particular cultural industry is a very significant contributor to Canada's economy.
The Canada travelling exhibitions indemnification act could be a very effective tool in helping Canadian museums bring in more attractive exhibitions enticing a greater participation from both Canadian and foreign audiences.
Already, current statistics indicate over 55 million visitors a year enter Canada's approximately 2,000 museums. This is a very impressive number of visitors. The credit for this success belongs to our dedicated museum staff along with the 50,000 volunteers who devote their time and energy toward helping maintain an important element of Canadian history.
As I mentioned previously, the bill responds to a certain need within our museum industry. However, much more needs to be done. I am encouraged by this government initiative. I believe it is a step in the right direction. I therefore support sending the bill to committee for further review.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): 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.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think that if you would seek it, you would find that the House is prepared to call it 1.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House prepared to call the clock as being 1.30 p.m.?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 12.15 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Workplace SafetyPeter MacKay: moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Criminal Code or other appropriate federal statutes should be amended in accordance with Recommendation 73 of the Province of Nova Scotia's Public Inquiry into the Westray disaster, specifically with the goal of ensuring that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety.
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, my neighbouring member of parliament, for his seconding of this motion.
Motion M-455 pertains particularly to one terrible moment in time, almost seven years ago in the small community of Plymouth in Pictou county, Nova Scotia when a terrible explosion ripped through the Westray coal mine. I will reiterate the motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Criminal Code or other appropriate federal statutes should be amended in accordance with Recommendation 73 of the Province of Nova Scotia's Public Inquiry into the Westray disaster, specifically with the goal of ensuring that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety.
I would like to take a brief moment to thank the draggermen who were involved very much in the marvellous and incredible efforts that were made to attempt to locate the 26 men who lost their lives underground that tragic day on May 9, 1992. Many of those draggermen came from Cape Breton. Surely Cape Breton is a place unlike any other in this country. It has had more than its share of tragedy.
The overriding attempt behind this motion would be to remind government and in fact all parliamentarians that we in this place and in provincial legislatures throughout the country must do everything in our power to ensure that there is a safe workplace for those who are engaged in labour activity. I speak not only of mines. I speak of fish plants. I speak of fishermen, of course, fisherpersons on the water. I speak of any factory and any situation where workers might find themselves encountering danger.
The method to do this is through enactment of legislation. As we are all aware, that is sometimes a very daunting prospect to put somehow into law provisions that will encourage those in the industry to abide by these legislative initiatives to ensure safety.
I suggest quite strongly that knowing criminal sanctions or other disciplinary acts of retribution exist is the most direct way to ensure that those with the implicit responsibility for ensuring safety will abide. This would lead to a higher level of accountability among executives, CEOs and management in companies that directly benefit from what might be phrased expediency over safety in the workplace.
This motion is based upon a recommendation, historically for reference purposes, that came from the Westray mine public inquiry which was conducted by Mr. Justice Peter Richard, a very prominent judge in the province of Nova Scotia. It was tabled in 1997 after a very lengthy public inquiry into the explosion at the Westray mine in Plymouth, Nova Scotia.
It is also important to note that for a partial period of time simultaneous to this public inquiry, a criminal prosecution was proceeding through the courts at various levels and eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The prosecutors in this case had a very difficult time presenting evidence. There was much procedural interference, one might suggest, in terms of the presentation of evidence to the courts.
I knew many of the prosecutors who were involved in that case. Peter Rosinski, Herman Felderholf, Andrew MacDonald and others worked extremely hard, very diligently to present the evidence on behalf of the crown. Similarly, I acknowledge the work of the defence counsel who, in fairness, were presenting evidence to the contrary and certainly doing their very best to defend their clients, as is their lot.
However, one might suggest because of the interpretation of the Criminal Code provisions, particularly those that refer to criminal negligence and manslaughter, these are provisions of the code that anyone having practised law will be quick to acknowledge are sometimes very blurry in terms of the evidentiary proof that is required to obtain a conviction.
I am not at all suggesting the Criminal Code provisions are the only provisions that should be examined in the context of improving these situations for workers in the workplace. However, this is certainly the starting point and one would suggest it is in keeping with the recommendations of Mr. Justice Richard.
Section 220 of the Criminal Code refers specifically to criminal negligence causing death; similarly section 234 refers to manslaughter. There may be the need as well to introduce amendments to these sections that would broaden the scope of culpability, or perhaps even go so far as to make specific reference to executives, directors, persons in management positions, persons who, one could draw the inference, are in a position of trust when it comes to the supervision of a workplace.
I brought this motion forward with the hope that the explosion at the Westray mine in Plymouth will not be forgotten. I can assure the House and Canadians generally that those in Pictou county and in all of Nova Scotia certainly recall with horror that period of time in May 1992 when this terrible tragedy occurred.
More important I think at this time the recommendations of the inquiry themselves should not be forgotten so that this tragedy would not have been in vain. It is in the hope that we in this place would learn lessons from what occurred at the Westray mine and we might somehow go forward from this point in attempting to prevent something like this from ever happening again. Surely when it comes to the criminal law, in fact when it comes to the passing of legislation, one of the first and foremost obligations that should be in the minds of legislators is that of prevention and that of improving the quality of life of those affected.
The devastation of that Mother's Day nearly seven years ago has left a long and painful memory in the hearts and minds of miners in the province of Nova Scotia. The explosion at the Westray coal mine sent a very chilling message to persons. The message was that haste and sometimes political expediency and sometimes the pursuit of financial gain can often put persons in danger when it comes to this type of enterprise.
The death of the 26 coal miners was so foreign and unexpected to a peaceful community like Plymouth that from the very second that those fathers, brothers and sons were taken away from their families, people were left immediately thinking of ways that such a tragedy could have been prevented.
I can only add to that the feelings the recent shooting in Colorado conjured up for me and others, the harsh reality of how quickly an entire community can be affected in such a way. I am sure the people of Littleton, Colorado are feeling some of the same emotions, although on a different level and certainly a different level of criminal act. However, I would suggest the immediacy and the sudden impact is similar to what was felt in the community of Plymouth.
It alarms us all to no end that such tragedies can occur and that no change results. The circumstances of the Westray mine cannot be forgotten and the lessons learned. To take it one extension further, the efforts made with respect to the tabling of the Westray inquiry only to sit idle on a shelf and to not be adopted or at least examined further, taken that one step further by the Department of Labour, is again an abdication of a responsibility that exists within the federal parliament. It is painful and I would suggest puzzling to suggest that we will do nothing further at this time.
Westray was the only operating underground coal mine in Pictou county at the time of the explosion. Although Pictou county itself has a long and rich tradition of coal mining, this Pictou coalfield had been mined for nearly 200 years. The elements of the disaster that rest in the nature of coal mining with thick and gassy seams is something that Pictonians have become very familiar with.
The Foord seam itself, which was being mined by the Westray corporation or Curragh Inc., has hosted at least eight mines. The Allan shaft, the most productive and the one that lay just northwest of the Westray workings, finally closed in the 1950s. During its 40 year lifetime it experienced no less than eight methane explosions which on many occasions it is suggested were the result of unsafe working conditions.
There is a chilling foreshadow that existed in this community. One would draw the conclusion that proper research conducted into those dangerous conditions might in some way have entered into the preventative efforts that should have been made. It is easy to look back on it and to perhaps have 20/20 vision in hindsight.
I reiterate that the gist of this motion is to not let lie that report to gather dust on some shelf somewhere in this precinct when we can gain knowledge and insight into what hopefully could be prevented in the future.
The fundamental and basic responsibilities for the safe operation of an underground coal mine and indeed any industrial undertaking rests very much with owners and managers. Westray management, starting with the CEO, was required by law and certainly by good business practices and good conscience to design and operate a mine safely. Westray management after the fact certainly came under attack for shirking that responsibility.
The significance of that failure cannot be overstated or mitigated. Simply because others were also abdicating their responsibilities is not an answer. Shared responsibility can be said to be implicit in the recommendations that came from Mr. Justice Richard's report.
As in the criminal context, in the civil context as well we are certainly aware that shared responsibility is something that can be encompassed by the law. There was plenty of blame to go around in the Westray report. That statement itself is reflective of the findings of Mr. Justice Richard.
Not only in the mining industry but in any business venture, corporate executives sometimes seem less interested in the merits of workplace safety and simply in the pursuit of profit. This is a very dangerous situation that can exist. We must be mindful of this. This mindset itself is precisely what sets a dangerous tone in a workplace where tragedies and the creation of unsafe working conditions may exist.
Business executives and corporate executives should be prepared to seek input from front line workers and allow them as employees to be part of the management scheme to a degree when it comes to safety. They should be relied upon to lend their knowledge to create the maintenance of a safe work environment. That is something that was also acknowledged in the report.
It is not a politically popular thing to say, but there was an element of culpability and responsibility on the workers themselves. This has to be taken into the entire context of what should occur as far as legislative initiatives to ensure accountability and responsibility is held by all.
Businesses must also ensure that they have sufficiently trained employees in that area. This is where the top down and bottom up approaches must be encompassed in any legislative initiative aimed at workplace safety. I suggest and emphasize that particularly when it comes to the operation of a traditionally dangerous work environment where equipment, often heavy equipment, is being utilized in the operation of that enterprise.
Businesses must also ensure that their employees are adequately supervised and constantly updated on safe work practices. Part and parcel of that of the companies, the executives and the workers, there is also a strong need for bureaucratic responsibility and bureaucratic supervision.
Mine and labour safety standards were ignored, sadly, in the case of Westray, or at least not adhered to to the extent they should have been. Looking at this issue in the larger context there must also be attachment of responsibility to government officials who are negligent in the performance of their duties that result in such horrific outcomes.
Sadly in the past we have all witnessed poorly trained individuals on the job where proper training had perhaps not been offered that sometimes resulted in injury or loss of life. Not only is that practice bad for business but it has the incalculable human consequence. It is also unsafe for people on the job where they are operating equipment. They are not only endangering themselves but also their fellow workers are at risk if the person is not properly trained.
In the overall context, this goes right to the top and is something that management has to be made aware of, constantly reminded of. I look forward to hearing from the minister on this point. There have been efforts made in the past but this is a continuing process that will have to be revisited. We hope it can be revisited or that this motion may in some small part help in the impetus of looking for ways to legislate safety in the workplace.
It is essential that companies take the time to train employees so that additional risk is limited for employees and those around them. Management must ensure that the employees have an appreciation for any special dangers that may be inherent on a job site.
In the case of the Westray coal mine, many tradespersons were prone to perform unsafe tasks or take dangerous shortcuts in their work, never once being told differently by management of the huge potential that did exist in a mine as gassy and as potentially explosive as the Foord seam. In many cases there was no question that management may have been aware, or ought to have been aware, that safe mining practices were not being performed by the workers.
As stated in Mr. Justice Richard's report, there was a strong indication that Westray management was aware that levels of methane underground to which the coal miners were exposed were very hazardous and potentially explosive. Under section 72 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act such conditions mandated the withdrawal of workers from affected areas, and that of course is what one must presume prevented management from acting quickly.
It stands to reason that when weighing business goals versus those of safety, sometimes businesses find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They have to make production deadlines. They have to produce and shutting an operation down obviously has huge financial consequences. That is where the human element and the safe discretion must be exercised.
If we need to remind executives and management and CEOs of this through legislation, I say we do it. It is implicit upon us that we act. Far too often businesses, and indeed heads of corporations, may be tempted by that financial gain and therefore put the safety of workers second. That type of short term gain could be for long term pain as we saw in the case of Westray. Of course I speak of the injury or death that can result. It is a very sad scenario.
Tough economic times that exist in the country put further pressure on workers. That is why this is so timely. The economic impact of having to shut down a corporation affects everyone in the company. The employees, the management, the board of directors, anyone associated with that business is going to feel a negative impact if there has to be an operational shutdown as a result of a potential breach of safety. But that is the cost of doing business and we have to do everything to ensure that those safe practices will be followed.
Companies must ensure that to avoid practising hazardous or illegal practices these acts cannot be condoned in any capacity. In some instances they are acts of omission that can result in the greatest harm as opposed to acts of commission. Companies, if they have not already done so, should do everything within their power to implement safe, ethical work practices.
Ethics such as this should be studied and followed everywhere in places of employment, even in upper management. If this is not the case, action must be taken to demonstrate the importance and the seriousness of the issue. Business executives must promote and nurture safe work ethics and have an open and approachable attitude toward their employees. No one ever wants to feel the effects we felt in Plymouth with the Westray mine.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion. I appreciate the attention and the support this motion should receive from all members of parliament.
Marlene Jennings: Madam Speaker, I would first like to say this.
I can certainly relate to the victims of Westray. My father and my uncle once worked in mines in the United States. Fortunately, they were never victims of a tragedy.
My father-in-law was a mineworker in Belgium and he survived the two worst disasters—explosions—that ever struck Belgian mines. In the early fifties, he was decorated by the Belgian government for his acts of heroism. He had saved victims of explosion in one mine. I am only too aware of what a tragedy this is.
The motion brought forward in the House deals with the safety of Canadian workers. Since this government has always been concerned with the safety and welfare of workers, I am happy, as a government member, to have this opportunity to comment on the motion.
First I want to tell the member who moved the motion that I share his concerns about safety in the workplace. The Westray tragedy, which the motion refers to, brought back to the attention of Canadians the issue of occupational safety. This is a very important issue that our government is taking very seriously.
We are very much aware of the high costs of work accidents, in terms of human suffering in particular, as well as financial hardship, because of the substantial expenses incurred as a result of accidents and occupational diseases.
Every year, many workers die in work related accidents and thousands of others suffer from work related injuries and sickness.
Every year, millions of workdays are lost. The human cost is extremely high. The cost to the Canadian economy is about $10 billion a year. The human and economic costs are way too high and something must be done soon.
I commend the member for bringing this issue before the House. He has identified an issue that should be of concern to all members. Although I do commend the member for raising his concerns with respect to workplace safety, I want to look a little more critically at the recommendations for legislative change that the motion includes.
Motion No. 455 asks that the House amend appropriate federal statutes, including the Criminal Code. These are far reaching recommendations. I think it is appropriate that we look at them more carefully.
First of all, while the Criminal Code is under the jurisdiction of the federal government, which can amend it to make sure it applies to the responsibility for occupational safety, the provinces and territories consider that this type or amendment would erode their right to legislate on occupational safety.
We all know very well that the issue of federal and provincial jurisdiction in many other areas of economic and social policy is very delicate. We do not want to open up a whole new can of worms. I certainly do not.
In other words, while the intent of the motion is very laudable, the proposed changes could have constitutional implications, which, though not intentional, could be very unfortunate.
Moreover, the Canada Labour Code already provides for occupational safety and imposes fines and sanctions against those who are convicted of an offence under the code.
As anyone who follows labour legislation in Canada knows, legislation concerning occupational safety and health in the federal jurisdiction is consolidated under the Canada Labour Code. The code has jurisdiction over a broad range of industries under federal jurisdiction, but only those which operate under federal jurisdiction.
What are these industries? Typically these are businesses whose operations are interprovincial or international in nature. Some examples that I can cite are railways, highway transport, telecommunications, pipelines, shipping, radio and TV broadcasting, banks, and other areas which I will not name. In addition the occupational safety and health provisions of the code cover employees of the federal public service including employees of some 40 crown corporations and agencies.
As we debate the motion, it is very important to look at where we are starting from with respect to the Canada Labour Code and specifically with respect to part II of that code.
Part II of the Canada Labour Code is the legislation that is already in place to govern occupational health and safety in federal works, undertakings and businesses. This legislation is intended to prevent accidents and injuries arising out of, linked with, or occurring in the course of employment which is subject to federal jurisdiction.
The legislation is based on three fundamental rights for all workers who come under federal jurisdiction. These fundamental rights are: the right to know about known or foreseeable hazards in the workplace; the right to participate in identifying and resolving job related safety and health problems; and the right to refuse dangerous work if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that a situation constitutes a danger to himself, to herself or to another employee.
This code also includes a set of occupational safety and health regulations that prescribe standards and procedures for both employers and employees to follow.
If these standards are not met, by virtue of part II of the code, senior managers and directors of federally regulated companies can be held responsible. If found guilty of a code offence, senior managers and directors are liable on summary conviction of a maximum fine of up to $100,000.
Under the code, an individual found guilty by way of indictment is liable to a maximum fine of $1 million and a maximum prison term of two years.
Next Wednesday, April 28, to mark the National Day of Mourning, the Canadian flag will be flown at half mast on Parliament Hill in memory of all those who where killed or injured at work.
The purpose of this special day is to heighten our awareness of our tremendous responsibilities regarding health and security in the workplace. Moreover, the North American Occupational Safety and Health Week, which will be held in May, will help raise awareness of this issue among Canadians.
In Canada, partners of the annual awareness campaign include the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety and the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering, which co-operate with the labour program.
In the federal jurisdiction we already have a set of standards and sanctions in place which govern workplace safety issues and hold corporate officers and directors liable for their actions in case of negligence or wrongdoing.
However, it is fair to say we still have a problem in the case of all those workers who are outside federal jurisdiction and who therefore are not covered by the Canada Labour Code. It is this question we must examine.
We must also examine the part of the motion which concerns recommendation no. 73 that the province of Nova Scotia made following the public enquiry. It requests—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must interrupt the hon. member. Her time has expired.

Government Orders
Public Sector Pension Investment Board ActDon Boudria: Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-78, an act to establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada Post Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Motion No. 455. The potential exists in terms of corporate responsibility.
One of the most dramatic examples of negligence on the part of corporate Canada was the 1992 Westray explosion which killed 26 miners. It was a disaster that did not need to happen, but it did. My hon. colleague from the Conservative Party should be commended for putting this motion forward.
Motion No. 455 deals with some very hard questions. It states very clearly that corporate executives cannot hide behind their titles when they engage in behaviour that has proven to be negligent or harmful to the people working under them.
We must also ensure that Motion No. 455 is not used as a cudgel to slam on the head of the executive world when it is not negligent and not responsible. In other words, we cannot use it as an action to make the corporate world responsible for things when it is not. We want to ensure that individuals, inside and outside corporate Canada, are dealt with equally and fairly under the law. Executives will not be able to hide behind their job titles in the commission of their duties.
We are also looking at a larger paradigm shift. We should look at the issue of corporate responsibility and the opportunities that exist. Historically, we have not examined the enormous opportunities the corporate world has for social good.
Some companies have done an incredible job, such as Ben &amp; Jerry's in the United States. It is a great giver and has an enormous amount of social concern and responsibility. Through its company, it has managed to improve the health and welfare of those people who are less privileged than most of us. There are many examples of companies in Canada that have used their powers as corporations to help individuals in our country.
Corporate Canada has two roles: to make a profit, which is extremely important, and to provide jobs and such that makes our country run. Profit is a good thing but a balance has to be struck between making a profit and the cost that is sometimes incurred by the behaviour of those companies.
We have not looked at the balance between making a profit and ensuring that a company is ethical and is not engaging in activities which could hurt the collective good and the people. We must have a balance between making a profit and the actions of the company and the costs.
Southwest Airlines in the United States is thriving and making a huge profit, but it is also very socially responsible. It treats its employees fairly and does an incredible social job within its region. This company has managed to strike the balance between profit making and corporate responsibility.
Rather than sacrificing profits, Southwest Airlines is one of the healthiest airlines in the United States. It is healthy because it managed to marry corporate responsibility with profit and managed to ensure that its employees bought into this exciting paradigm shift.
Profit sharing on the part of the employees and the owners is a very good thing. It actually ensures that their employees will derive benefits from their actions. This tends to make employees work harder and more effectively, which would benefit the company.
This change or paradigm shift in our thinking of corporate responsibility does need to be applied just to the private sector. It can be applied to government. Why not have public service employees deriving financial benefits from doing their jobs. If a department was able to meet or cut its budget then a percentage of that could be shared by the employees of that department. Right now we do not have that.
Today, when a government department sees it is going to have a surplus at the end of the year, it tries to spend the surplus so it will not have its budget cut in the next year. Why not give a percentage of that savings to the people who have, through their actions of wise spending and through their responsible actions as employees, managed to save money for the taxpayer. The taxpayer would still derive the benefit because their money would not have been wasted. The people who made sure that they spent wisely would also derive a financial benefit. It is a win-win situation. It would also ensure that the public sector would be working more effectively, which we would all applaud.
The issue of corporate responsibility can also be applied to the actions of corporations internationally. Actions by corporations have destroyed environments and decimated social structures abroad. We mentioned the issue of the Sydney tar ponds where actions by companies clearly poisoned the surrounding environment. We cannot allow this to happen.
Motion No. 455 brings up a very exciting point about making those people who engage in that type of behaviour responsible. It also provides a window for the other side of the coin which is to use the private sector for the public good. The beauty of Motion No. 455 is that it deals with both sides.
The explicit part of Motion No. 455 is a punitive one which must be done and should be looked at least. We believe in studying this to ensure that companies cannot compromise the health and welfare of their employees and other people. Also there lies an opportunity to do public good.
Some companies that work abroad work in very impoverished lands. We must also consider those companies that work in impoverished lands or in countries where a despot is abusing the people, such as what occurred in Nigeria in the past. Canadian companies working in those areas should have an obligation to invest part of their profits into social programs for the people, basic programs such as health and education. Companies must also ensure that their employees are paid fairly, not on a Canadian wage basis, but in terms of the country in which they are operating.
That is a very powerful thing for the surrounding people in that country. Canadian companies working abroad can be used as a powerful tool for ensuring social stability and improving the social structures within countries which in many cases are some of the most impoverished lands in the world.
I have to wrap up so I will summarize by saying that Motion No. 455 has some excellent points. I commend the member from the Conservative Party for putting it forward. We need to study this to ensure that those in corporate Canada do not hide behind their titles and abuse the people. The other side is to use this as a window for corporate Canada to engage in public good not only within our country but also abroad.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the first hour of debate on Motion M-455, moved by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Criminal Code or other appropriate federal statutes should be amended in accordance with Recommendation 73 of the Province of Nova Scotia's Public Inquiry into the Westray disaster, specifically with the goal of ensuring that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety.
Let us first look at the facts surrounding the Westray mine tragedy and all the proceedings that led to the commission's report.
On May 9, 1992, an explosion occurred at the Westray mine, killing 26 workers. On May 15 of that same year, the Government of Nova Scotia appointed Mr. Justice Peter Richard to head a commission of inquiry established under the Public Inquiries Act. Mr. Justice Richard was also appointed special investigator under the Coal Mining Regulation Act.
The commission had a very broad mandate, so as to shed light on the explosion and all the related circumstances. In fact, Nova Scotia's premier at the time, Donald Cameron, was very clear about that mandate:
Mr. Justice Richard's inquiry will not be limited to the events of the early morning of May 9. Nothing and no person with any light to shed on this tragedy will escape the scrutiny of this inquiry.
The commission's work thus began immediately, to prepare for the public hearings set to begin on October 19, 1992.
Curragh Resources Inc. and Westray's management challenged the validity of the order in council establishing the commission of inquiry, and this, as members can imagine, led to numerous legal proceedings. Because of these delays, the Richard report was tabled only five years later, in November 1997.
The report, entitled “The Westray Story: A Predictable Path to Disaster”, contains 74 recommendations. It concluded in general that this tragedy could have been avoided if minimal occupational safety standards had been met.
As we know, the employers' obligations in terms of occupational health and safety fall under provincial jurisdiction. So, before determining if the employers were negligent or made a mistake, it is important to find out what their obligations are pursuant to the relevant legislation.
In Nova Scotia, mining is regulated by three pieces of legislation, the Mineral Resources Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Coal Mines Regulation Act. Mr. Justice Richard reviewed all of these provincial acts and concluded that their main purpose was to ensure the safety of the workers.
Unfortunately, we have seen many examples of occupational safety in the workplace taking second place behind the bottom line, especially in the mining industry, where the very nature of the work involves a lot of risk. So, it is the duty of company officers to ensure that the work is done in the safest possible conditions. We need only think of the tragedy that occurred in the 1980s at the Balmoral gold mine in Abiliti, killing eight workers.
Frédéric Le Play, a 19th century French sociologist, wrote “The most important thing that should come out of a mine is the miner himself”. Mr. Justice Richard therefore concluded that Nova Scotia should revise its legislation on occupational health and safety in order to make coal mining safer.
Our main concern today is recommendation 73 of the report. It is addressed to the federal government and deals with Criminal Code amendments on the responsibility of directors for safety in the workplace.
The commissioner made this recommendation because of the criminal proceedings undertaken while Mr. Justice Richard's public inquiry was underway. On April 20, 1993, the RCMP announced that charges were being laid against Curragh Resources Inc., as well as Gerald Phillips and Roger Parry, two members of the mine's management. !gerald sur le net They were charged with criminal negligence and homicide under sections 220 and 222(5) of the Criminal Code.
Since the court found that those charges were too vague for the accused to be able to put up an appropriate defence, other charges were laid, based on infractions under provincial laws on occupational safety.
This is why Mr. Justice Richard made recommendation 73. If we are to understand clearly the meaning of the motion before the House, we should first have a look at recommendation 73 of the Westray mine public inquiry:
The Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice, should institute a study of the accountability of corporate executives and directors for the wrongful or negligent acts of the corporation and should introduce in the Parliament of Canada such amendments to legislation as are necessary to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety.
The current effectiveness of the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with the accountability of corporate executives with regard to workplace safety is of concern to us. This is why we believe this issue should be looked at from a general perspective and not solely within the context of the Westray mine. In our view, criminal proceedings against Westray mine officers, which have proved fruitless so far, were affected by the climate created by the public enquiry. Therefore, the study should ensure that the provisions of the Criminal Code complement the provisions in the various provincial statutes dealing with workplace safety.
We support the member's motion. An in-depth and thorough review of the issue must take place before any legislative changes are introduced. Recommendation 73 clearly proposes that a study take place prior to making any such changes. We believe, and I hope my colleague who is sponsoring this motion will agree with me, it would be more appropriate for the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to undertake this study.
This is why I am proposing the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by adding after the word “amended” the following: “, following a study by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights,”
In our opinion this amendment clarifies the motion and is in keeping with recommendation 73. With this amendment, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights would be charged with carrying out the study referred to in recommendation 73 by the commission of inquiry. We could then have clear reason to amend the Criminal Code.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the amendment is in order.
Peter Mancini: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address the motion of my colleague from Nova Scotia, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. It is also my pleasure to indicate that he will have, as he knows, my support on the motion. He will have the support of our party as well.
His motion calls for the government to act upon recommendation No. 73 of the public inquiry of the province of Nova Scotia into the Westray disaster and to amend the Criminal Code accordingly. It mirrors very much a bill that was introduced by the leader of our party in relation to the Westray disaster in January 1999. Our bill details the specific changes to the Criminal Code required to address the concerns of corporate liability and workplace safety as indicated in the Westray report.
I began by saying the hon. member knows he will have my support. I come from the same province. I come from a coal mining community. I remember well the Westray disaster because that day I was not in Nova Scotia. My wife and I had taken some time and were outside the province. When we called home and spoke to the caregiver who was looking after our children we did not talk about the weather. We did not talk a whole lot. The first thing we were apprised of was the situation in Westray.
It is perhaps difficult for those who do not live in mining communities to understand the impact of that news. Coming from Cape Breton we knew that it would be our friends and colleagues who would volunteer to go into those mines to find the bodies of the 26 coal miners who were killed, and they did.
For those who live in communities where there are coal mines, for those who live in industrial communities, it is difficult to describe how ingrained and how we know that disaster lurks around the corner. When a whistle blows, when there is the sound of an explosion from the blast furnace, when we look at the changing colour of the sky and the fishermen are out on the water, we know that there will be disaster.
We live with that reality every day. The miners in Stellarton live with that. The miners in Sydney mines and New Waterford live with that and the fishermen live with that. It colours the way we react. There is some romance around that but it leads to certain harsh realities. It leads to some good realities. It leads to the way we share things. It leads to a sense of community. It leads to a sense of humour that is mirrored in the works of our poets and artists and in the songs of our musicians.
We live with the frustrating knowledge that corporations which exploit workers in areas of high unemployment in dangerous settings literally get away with murder. It is that reality which the motion and the New Democratic Party's bill seek to address.
I say this having listened to the speaker on the government side. I will not dwell on it, but one of the real concerns we have as the government dismantles the Cape Breton Development Corporation is that it will move to a private mine without a union under provincial jurisdiction, without the protections we now have, which were the very circumstances that led to the disaster at Westray. I urge the government to bear that in mind.
There are ways to prevent this. One way is to accept the motion and the New Democratic Party's bill. I will read from the wording of Justice Richard in the Westray report:
The Westray Story is a complex mosaic of actions, omissions, mistakes, incompetence, apathy, cynicism, stupidity, neglect—Viewed in context, these seemingly isolated incidents constitute a mindset or operating philosophy that appears to favour expediency over intelligent planning and that trivializes safety concerns. Indeed, management at Westray displayed a certain disdain for safety and appeared to regard safety conscious workers as the wimps in the organization. To its discredit, the management at Westray, through either incompetence or ignorance, lost sight of the basic tenet of coal mining that safe mining is good business.
The tale that unfolds in the Westray report is a story of incompetence, of mismanagement, of bureaucratic bungling, of deceit, of ruthlessness, of cover-up, of apathy, of expediency and of cynical indifference. It is a tragic story with the inevitable moments of pathos and heroism. The Westray story concerns an event that in all good common sense ought not to have occurred. It did occur and that is our unfortunate legacy. It is in fact our unfortunate tragedy.
There are ways to stop this. There are ways to stop criminal murder by corporations of their workers. That is what our bill will seek to address and that is what the motion seeks to address. There are ways it can be done by amending the Criminal Code.
In that report Justice Richard pointed out those ways. He suggested that there be a new criminal offence that would impose criminal liability on directors or others responsible for failing to ensure their corporation maintains an appropriate standard of occupational health and safety in the workplace, a criminal offence of corporate killing.
Justice Richard said “in the context of Westray these deserve consideration”. They deserve more than consideration; they demand action. Recommendation No. 73 states that the Government of Canada through the Department of Justice should institute a study of the accountability of corporate executives and directors for the wrongful or negligent acts of corporations and should introduce in the Parliament of Canada such amendments to legislation as are necessary to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held accountable for workplace study.
The only disagreement I have with this is the call for more study. We do not need more study. We need legislation. That is why we intend to introduce a bill complementing the motion of my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough which will amend the Criminal Code to make this law.
This is not the first time it has been raised. I quote from the Law Reform Commission of Canada back in 1976 which stated: “While the goals of many of our corporations, profit and growth, spur important advances in the technologies of production and—”
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
The hon. member will have about three minutes left the next time this is brought back to the House.
It being 1.15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.15 p.m.)