2000-06-09

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There are nine motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for report stage of Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Motions Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: a ) the vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 3 and 7; b ) if Motion No. 1 is concurred in, a vote will be necessary on Motion No.4; c ) however if motion No. 1 is negatived, it will be unnecessary to proceed with the vote on Motion No. 4.
Motions Nos. 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: Motions Nos. 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9 will be voted on separately.
I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7 to the House.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I read the Chair's decision on the acceptability of certain of the amendments to Bill C-19 I introduced. I find the Chair's decision on two of them questionable and I would ask that it be reviewed.
At issue are the two motions dealing with the schedule. Basically, both amendments are aimed at making sure the complete text of the Rome Statute is incorporated into the schedule to the bill, whereas currently only two articles are incorporated in the bill as it now stands.
These two motions were supposedly found out of order because the amendments went beyond the scope of the bill. I find it difficult to understand how the amendments go beyond the scope of the bill as they are aimed at incorporating the whole statute when some parts of it are already incorporated into the bill.
The true aim of these amendments is to circulate the text of the Rome Statute so that citizens may learn what it is all about when they read the act, as is the case with other implementing acts which include the text of the Geneva conventions, for instance, or of the treaties on antipersonnel mines or the nuclear test ban, which were recently passed by this House.
I urge the Chair to review the decision and rule in order two of the amendments aimed at incorporating the complete text of the Rome Statute in Bill C-19.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): At this time I would like to take the point of order raised by the member under advisement and we will get back to him on that very soon.
Daniel Turp: moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-19, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 1 the following:
““Minister”, in relation to any provision of this Act, means such member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada as is designated by the Governor in Council as the Minister for the purposes of that provision.”
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 2 the following new clause:
“3.1 The Governor in Council may, by order, designate any member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada to be the Minister for the purposes of any provision of this Act.”
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 2 the following new clause:
“3.1 The Minister may designate any person to exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the Minister under this Act that are specified in the designation and on that designation that person may exercise those powers and shall perform those duties and functions subject to such terms and conditions, if any, as are specified in the designation.”
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 22 the following new clause:
“32.1 The Minister shall prepare an annual report with respect to the implementation of this Act and shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before the House of Commons within three months after the end of each financial year or, if the House is not then sitting, on any of the first fifteen days next thereafter that it is sitting.”
Madam Speaker, we have noticed that some of the clauses which are the subject of the amendments you just read cannot be found in several pieces of legislation recently passed by the House of Commons to implement international conventions.
For example, in the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act and in the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, it says at the beginning that a particular minister is designated by the governor in council to administer the act and that it is possible for that minister to delegate this responsibility to another minister.
In the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, there is also a provision that was added, at our request, to take into account the way in which Australia fulfilled its obligations under that convention, provision whereby the minister was required to submit an annual report on the application of the act in order to inform the people about how the act was administered and how it allowed the country to fulfil its obligations under the treaty to which it had become a party.
That is the reason why amendments such as these could not only be useful, but could also give more consistency to the various implementation bills this Parliament is called upon to pass so that Canada's international obligations under the treaties to which it becomes a party are fulfilled.
I am calling here for a certain degree of consistency in our treaty implementation legislation, a consistency which is lacking and which the House should reflect upon more deeply since we do not seem to be able to have the same legislative practices whether we are dealing with the anti-personnel mines convention or, in this case, with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
These amendments would improve the bill and give more consistency to our treaty implementation legislation.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague. I know that he is a renowned scholar and that everybody respects his opinions as an international law professor.
The importance of establishing the international criminal court literally cannot be overstated. The court is a legacy of the Nuremberg war trials which came out of the ashes of the Holocaust and the second world war.
We are all aware of the depths of horror that the 20th century brought to millions and millions of our fellow human beings on this planet. There have been forced famines, genocides, mass expulsions, mass rapes, that horrible term ethnic cleansing, and every war crime one could imagine. Those who commit those crimes from now on must be held accountable to humanity. People who do these things must no longer be able to hide anywhere on the face of the earth. In order for the international criminal court to be created, 60 nations must ratify this proposal before December of this year.
Many members of the House have recognized the importance and the urgency of ratifying the international criminal court and actively urge other nations to follow suit.
Human rights NGOs have echoed repeatedly the urgency of passing the bill at committee hearings. I would like to commend in particular the members for Mount Royal, Burnaby—Douglas and our colleague from Mercier for their unequivocal commitment to seeing the establishment of the court and the timely adoption of this bill.
May I also commend the members of the foreign affairs committee and in particular the chair, the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale, who played a most productive, thoughtful and constructive role at the committee.
The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry is very much aware of that because he was fully involved maybe more than any other member in the committee hearings and he knows that the committee heard a lot of testimony.
It passed 18 amendments as a result of suggestions from members of all parties, including the hon. member's own party. I understand it was a most non-partisan, collaborative and satisfying process such that the chair referred to it in the House the other day. He said, “I should like to take one minute and share an observation with the House. It is often said that in committee time is not given to study bills properly and to amend them. I urge members of the House to have a look at the many amendments which were made to this bill with the co-operation of all members”. The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry expressed his satisfaction with the process calling it “une expérience tout à fait extraordinaire”.
It is therefore a surprise, although it is perfectly proper as the member knows, to see a further 20 amendments at report stage, possibly knowing it would delay passage of the bill while there are only a very critical few days left in the House before adjournment. I would submit that the amendments are either identical or similar to those considered thoroughly at the committee stage, or more relevant to the hon. member's personal interest, the role of parliament in treaty implementation.
Thus, we were surprised on this side of the House to see the hon. member submit so many amendments this morning. It must be clear that the government cannot accept any of these amendments. I must also clarify something: I mentioned that 60 countries must approve the treaty; this is a ratification issue. Sixty countries must ratify the treaty before it can come into effect.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-19 and the various amendments.
This bill is very important for all of us. As has been indicated it relates to the implementation of Canada's obligations under the Rome statute regarding the international criminal court. This bill would certainly make it an offence to commit genocide, a crime against humanity, or a war crime.
When we look around today we see so many examples of war crimes and atrocities being committed that this is a certainly an area we have to pay strict attention to. Human life is our most valuable resource and asset. We see crimes being committed against humanity, against children, women and quite often innocent bystanders of war. This is an area that we have to seriously look at.
Looking at the background of this situation, it was in July 1998 that 160 nations decided in Rome to establish a permanent international criminal court. This was a big move forward in terms of looking after the interests of mankind and protecting humanity.
The bill deals with the implementation of Canada's obligations and indeed is very important. Canada has been a strong proponent for the establishment of the international criminal court. It has often been suggested that our poor record at home in prosecuting suspected war criminals is something to look at closely.
We certainly support implementing our obligations. With respect to the amendments, I support my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois concerning the necessity of an annual report. I believe that is in Motion No. 7. An annual report is important because it brings about accountability and transparency. It is the record and way of informing the public as to what we are doing on issues. We know how very important annual reports are so we support the motion.
I will not speak to the amendments tabled today because we have not had the opportunity to study them. However, certainly we would support anything that helps or alleviates some of the suffering we see as a result of war crimes, and brings about a fair process to deal with that kind of situation.
As an aside, we talk about war crimes and define them in terms of genocide and various acts and atrocities. In the whole process of war and our involvement, when we send our troops abroad into the battlefield, we have to have a much broader definition of what is criminal, what really can be “criminal” when it comes to how we treat our own people who defend our shores. In a lot of instances we have to draw our attention to what we ourselves do by way of supporting or not supporting our troops when they are on missions.
There is one thing which I think is a very serious “crime”. When a soldier who has dedicated and devoted his life to our country goes off to war and he is concerned about taking a vaccine that could harm him because of problems with that vaccine, he faces a court martial. The individual has to go through the strain, stress and turmoil of a court martial. It places stress on him, his family and others close to him. There are the costs involved. When he is successful and a judge pronounces that something has been done wrong and his rights have been violated, then the government sees fit to institute an appeal against that decision and the individual is put through further turmoil, strife, pain and suffering. This to me is a crime in itself and is something we have to look at.
We cannot talk about being concerned about war crimes and what happens in other parts of the world when here at home we put our own people through what can be truly described as a criminal experience.
With those comments I conclude my remarks. When we look at these things I urge that we truly consider what we are saying and where we are coming from in our own hearts and minds.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and ward crimes.
The Progressive Conservative Party supports and applauds this excellent initiative by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
First of all, I should like to congratulate the members of the standing committee on foreign affairs, who all worked together on this initiative without any needless party politics. Moreover, the committee report was tabled this week and all members are, I believe, pleased with the way it has turned out.
Much can be said about this bill. I believe it would be advisable to review the main thrust of Bill C-19.
The purpose of Bill C-19 is to implement Canada's obligations under the Rome Statute, adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICC, on July 17, 1998. In order to have a clear understanding of this bill, it is important to first of all have a clear understanding of the objective and scope of the Rome Statute.
The Statute was approved in July 1998 by 120 countries and will come into existence after ratification by the parliaments of 60 states. The ICC will be the first permanent international instance mandated to investigate the most serious of crimes under international law: genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
I am proud. It was high time for Canada to show some leadership by ensuring that the authors of these horrible crimes are charged and punished. With so many lives lost, the international community should work together in order to do something.
With Bill C-19 Canada joins forces with the numerous countries, which are taking the necessary steps to integrate the Rome Statute with their national legislation. Although nine states have already ratified the Statute, it is a source of pride to the Progressive Conservatives Party that Canada is one of the first to enact legislation to implement the Rome Statute.
According to the Department of Justice there are presently in Canada 400 people that are deemed to have been involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.
It is totally unacceptable that those war criminals could quietly live as if nothing had happened. Canada does not want to be recognized as a haven for war criminals.
The clock was ticking. The international community had to get together to develop a permanent organization having all the powers to fulfil it's obligations. We could not ignore the atrocities committed in some countries under the guise of war any more. It was too easy, and unfortunately, the previous system of ad hoc tribunals was not very efficient. Being a permanent organization, the ICC will be able to fulfil its mandate.
Clause 4 of the bill states that every person who commits genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime is guilty of an indictable offence. The definition of those three terms is based on sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute.
It is an addition to the criminal code since every person convicted of one of these offences is sentenced to life emprisonement if their crime was intentional. In all other cases, that person is liable to life imprisonment.
These measures would apply to offences committed in Canada and would allow the government to bring an action against the perpetrators or to extradite them so that they can be judged by the ICC. As I have already said, it is a real improvement because it was very difficult for the Department of Justice to prosecute war criminals who had found refuge in Canada because of the court's decision in the Finta case that we have already talked about.
There is however an element on which I would like to come back, and it is the defence argument of obedience to the orders of a superior. It will be remembered that in his client's defence, Mr. Finta's lawyer argued correctly that, under the criminal code, the defence of obedience to a superior's orders was available to members of the military or police forces.
From now on this kind of defence will no longer be available, except under international law. These provisions were necessary.
Another feature of the bill is its retroactivity. Some expressed reservations about this. Nevertheless, I want to congratulate the minister and the committee on their work. In most cases, the events in question occurred as far back as the second world war or during conflicts prior to the signing of the Rome Statute.
One must be realistic. Since most of the events date back more than 50 years, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find the individuals who perpetrated war crimes or crimes against humanity, especially under the nazi regime. Moreover, justice department officials had difficulty finding witnesses to those events to justify the extradition. If the bill had not applied retroactively, it would not have made sense.
Bill C-19 is fairly complete, as it gives jurisdiction to Canadian courts in the case of offences committed outside Canada through clause 8. This clause also recognizes that Canadian courts have the authority to prosecute any person charged with having committed specific acts, providing one of the conditions listed exists.
With respect to Bill C-19, Canada now has an obligation to surrender people caught by the ICC for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. I could say a lot more about the need for such a bill, but in conclusion I will mention that victims of war have suffered terrible ordeals, and through Bill C-19 Canada takes the position that no war criminal is safe or welcome within our borders.
This position has the support of Canadians and the Progressive Conservative Party. We do not want our great country to serve as a haven for war criminals.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the (motion, amendment) will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the motion lost on division.
(Motion No. 1 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Consequently, I also declare Motions Nos. 3 and 7 negatived.
I will now put the motions in Group No. 2 to the House.
Daniel Turp: moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 2 the following new clause:
“2.1 The purpose of this Act is to implement Canada's obligations under the Rome Statute.”
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-19, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 43 on page 9 and lines 1 to 6 on page 10 with the following:
“8. A person who is alleged to have committed an offence under section 6 or 7 may be prosecuted for that offence if, at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed, Canada could exercise jurisdiction over the person.”
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 11 the following new clause:
“11.1 For greater certainty, in proceedings for an offence under any of sections 4 to 7, an accused who formerly occupied a position as a Head of State or government, member of a Government or parliament, elected representative or government official and who, at the time of the proceedings, no longer occupies that position, may not rely on immunities or special procedural rules that may attach, by virtue of statute law or common law, to the official capacity of the person.”
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 22 the following new clause:
“32.1 A certificate issued by the Minister of Foreign Affairs stating that at a certain time a state of war or armed conflict existed between Canada and the state named therein is admissible in evidence in any proceedings in respect of an act or omission that constitutes an offence under this Act and is conclusive proof of the facts so stated.”
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-19, in Clause 70, be amended by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 37 with the following:
“of the Extradition Act, the Visiting Forces Act, the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act or the Foreign Missions and International”
Madam Speaker, that group of motions will give us the opportunity to comment on the substance of Bill C-19.
As a plenipotentiary in this House and after hearing with pleasure the comments of my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, as well as those of the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa, I would like to begin my speech on the second series of my substantive amendments to this the bill by saying that the Bloc Quebecois strongly supports Bill C-19.
We believe that it is very important for the House to pass the bill so it can become an inspiration for other nations or parliaments that will also be called upon to meet their international obligations by fulfilling the commitments resulting from their participation in the Rome conference, the adoption of the statute, its signature and its ultimate ratification, which usually follows the adoption of an implementation bill like Bill C-19.
It is true that Canada could become one of the main advocates of the statute in the international community to convince 50 other states to ratify the Rome Statute. So far, ten nations, one very recently, have ratified the statute. We need 50 more countries to pass similar legislation so that the statute can come into force and the International criminal court can start to operate, try and, if need be, sentence people found guilty of serious crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or war crimes.
Consequently the Bloc fully supports the bill and, with my colleagues from Mercier and Laval Centre, we co-operated in the work of the committee to improve the bill. However, there is still room for improvement. That is the object of some of our amendments at report stage. Incidentally, we had made our intentions known in this regard in committee.
I understand the secretary of state's surprise, but is it not appropriate sometimes for the opposition to surprise the government? It always has so many surprises in store for us.
In this case, we wanted to propose a few amendments to further improve the bill. I will call the members' attention to two of those amendments for the purposes of this debate and, most likely, for the purposes of the arguments that may take be raised before the courts that will be called upon to enforce this legislation, prosecute and eventually convict the authors of such serious crimes.
Motion No. 5, which amends clause 8 of the bill, would give Canadian courts extended universal jurisdiction in the case of serious international crimes such as those covered by Bill C-19. In this bill, universal jurisdiction is limited in scope because there has to be some kind of connection with regard to the nationality of the victim or the accused, or to the person who, during an armed conflict, committed a war crime.
There is also the connection to the territory since a person cannot be accused if he or she is not present in Canada. We would like to see this notion of custodian jurisdiction extended so that Canada has the power to request the extradition of a person for prosecution under this bill, a power countries such as Belgium and Switzerland seem to have already assumed.
We would like the universal jurisdiction recognized in Bill C-19 to be wider in scope, so that Canada can stop being a haven for war criminals and become a place where these people are brought to justice. If Canada gave its courts extended universal jurisdiction, compared to what is provided for in Bill C-19 as it stands now, Canada would be in a position where it would meet its international commitments better than any other country and where it would show its desire not to let serious international crimes go unpunished.
There is another provision that we would wish to see amended. It would involve adding to this bill a new clause, clause 11.1, which would very explicitly recognize that, if a foreign head of state or government or member of a government, or even a member of parliament, is on Canadian territory and could be brought to trial, this person would not be able to rely on immunity before the courts.
To make this clear, we could give the example of General Pinochet who, if he were on Canadian territory, could be brought to trial, but could perhaps claim some immunity before our courts if our legislation were not clear enough.
During the work of the committee, experts from the Department of Foreign Affairs told us that the precedents set by the judiciary committee of the privy council in London that examined the case of Mr. Pinochet had deprived General Pinochet of his immunity. Consequently, these precedents could be applied here. The common law that resulted from these precedents could be applied by our courts and deprive someone such as General Pinochet or someone in a similar situation of his immunity.
What the Bloc Quebecois would have wished for and still wishes for is for these precedents set by the judiciary committee of the Privy Council to be included in the bill.
This is why we are proposing subclause 11.1, which would clearly say that an accused who formerly occupied a position as a head of state or government, member of a government or parliament, elected representative or government official and who, at the time of the proceedings, no longer occupies that position, may not rely on immunities or special procedural rules that may attach, by virtue of statute law or common law, to the official capacity of the person.
Such a provision would be useful because it would provide for more certainty; we would be absolutely sure that individuals suspected of having committed serious crimes, such as crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide, could not obtain immunity before our courts. It would enshrine the common law in the statutes of Canada and would allow courts to strip those individuals of their immunity in order to punish crimes that should be punished.
We have proposed other amendments that should improve this bill, including a provision clearly stating that this act relates to the discharge of Canada's obligations under the Rome Statute.
In conclusion, I would like to say how important it is to sustain the effort to ensure rapid implementation of the Rome Statute.
The adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998 by the Conference of Plenipotentiaries was a turning point in the history of humanity. We are collectively trying to establish an institution that would allow nations and international institutions to truly punish international crimes. We already have an institution. All we need now is to adopt and ratify the treaties, pass the implementing legislation, as we are doing today, and that dream will become reality.
Finally, I would like to pay tribute to someone who is no longer with us, Justice Jules Deschênes, who devoted part of his life to these issues. A major report was drafted by the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, which he presided. I want to pay tribute to Justice Deschênes and to thank him and his family for his contribution to this debate, which he would have been proud to witness today.
Gordon Earle: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this group of motions. Generally speaking we would be supportive of this group of motions, although we find that Motion No. 5 could perhaps be worded a little better. Generally speaking we agree with the intent of that motion.
As I mentioned earlier, the whole bill is one that is extremely important. Even though it was in July 1998 that the nations agreed to this international criminal court, we realize that the UN General Assembly recognized the need for an international criminal court as early as 1948 in the aftermath of the second world war and the subsequent Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. The U.S., France, Russia and China have argued for a court with circumscribed powers. A Canadian led group of like minded nations supported a strong international criminal court, including the U.K., Croatia, Singapore and Egypt.
When we look at home at how this concept has developed, we realize that the international criminal court and Bill C-19 do not really have a high profile in Canada. We have to elevate that profile and bring to people's attention how important this kind of process is. The limited opposition has been focused on minor issues without putting forward the question of the principle of the court. That is a very important principle that has to be looked at.
Within the non-governmental organization community we know that the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development has established a wide network of supporters in Canada and internationally, including groups such as Amnesty International, the U.S. based Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights Internet. Certainly our party is supportive of the idea of this court.
As I said earlier, we have to look at a broader aspect when we deal with the whole issue of war crimes. One very serious issue that is taking place right now, and if it were to unfold we could certainly say it would lay the groundwork for further war and war crimes, is the national missile defence system which the United States is proposing.
Just recently the President of the United States journeyed to Russia to try to convince the Russian president and the Russian Duma that his system was something they should be unconcerned about and that they should perhaps support. We realize that mission fell flat on its face and now we notice that the Russian president has travelled to North Korea to try to sort out questions and concerns around that whole issue with the North Koreans.
This is a very serious issue. It is something that ties into the topic that we are looking at today when we talk about war and war crimes. Right now, if we look seriously at the issue, Canada could be a leader in this whole area. We could perhaps be calling for a solution to the problem the U.S. feels it faces and would give rise to the need for such a national missile defence system and the whole question of ballistic missiles.
We should be leading the fight to call for an international ban on test missile flights. The whole issue of missiles could be tackled from a different perspective, a preventive perspective, in the same way as we did with land mines. We could be the leaders in dealing with the issue in a proactive, preventive way as opposed to the reactionary way in which the U.S. is dealing with it that is tending to lead to arms augmentation and more build-up rather than disarmament.
I just tie that into the issue because it is very important. We know the outcome of any further activity in that area could certainly lead to many serious cases of war crimes being looked at.

Statements By Members
People SmugglingMr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the new slave trade being carried out by people smuggling rings is a heinous and despicable crime. People are forced into lives of prostitution, into the drug trade and into sweatshops. It is critical that people smuggling is dealt with firmly and quickly.
Let us have a look at the government's record on this issue. Ten months after the first boat arrived less than 25% of the cases have been finalized. More than 50% of the 600 who came by boat are still in detention. More than 25% of the 600 have just disappeared. These 600 people are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to people who come to Canada with the aid of people smugglers.
The government has failed the victims of this new slave trade. What a blotch on Canadian history. The government has a lot to answer for when it comes to its inaction on the serious problem of people smuggling and the new slave trade.
Scientific ResearchMs. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to mention two important initiatives taken by the government in my riding of York West.
Just recently York University received a $14,000 grant under the northern scientific training program. Since its inception in 1961 this training program has played a key role in supporting the development of scientific expertise in northern research and in promoting the vital and growing role of Canadian universities in this field. Without this support, many of these initiatives would be very difficult to promote.
The second initiative is part of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, which is an $11.8 million investment aimed at strengthening the research capacity of 28 Canadian universities. Under the new opportunities fund, York University will be able to finance a new scientific research facility.
York University and its students are an integral part of my riding. I am very glad to see that the government recognizes the vital importance of funding such research initiatives.
Helmut OberlanderMrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the past few months friends and family of Mr. Helmut Oberlander have been working diligently on his behalf.
They have collected hundreds of petitions containing 12,000 signatures from across the country. My office has received numerous petitions with approximately 700 signatures from the residents of Kitchener—Waterloo.
The petitioners say that whereas Helmut Oberlander has been totally exonerated by the federal court of any criminal activity or war crimes, directly or indirectly in the second world war; and whereas finding of fault with the immigration process should not form the basis for citizenship revocation and deportation; and whereas Mr. Oberlander has been a good citizen of Canada and a contributing member of the community for over 40 years, the petitioners call upon the federal government not to revoke the citizenship or deport Helmut Oberlander of Waterloo.
Cfb ShiloMr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the defence department has been undertaking a land base study in Manitoba. The future of CFB Shilo in Manitoba is at stake.
Although several options were presented to the ministry, we have not heard the outcome of those discussions.
There is rumour of the rural based training facility being shut down. The training facility at CFB Shilo is second to none. Abandoning these facilities, which were recently upgraded at the expense of the public purse, does not make sense. I believe moving jobs from Shilo would be another attack on the rural culture of Canada.
Officials from CFB Shilo near my riding want to know what the future holds for their base. If all factors being considered in this study are correct, then I see no reason why CFB Shilo, a key piece of Canadian military history, cannot remain operational.
Considering the ministry has the final business case on the Manitoba study, I would urge the minister to unveil the action plan regarding the future of CFB Shilo and the future of this military base in Manitoba.
Cadets In CanadaMr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I am going to reveal one of Canada's best kept secrets. For those of you who despair of the behaviour of our youth, I have good news.
This being spring in Canada, that means cadet inspection time. Although I am a director of the Air Cadet League of Canada and past member of the RCAF, all cadet corps, land, sea and air invite me to attend their annual inspections. To see these well turned out young men and women with their pressed uniforms, neat hair, shined shoes and pride in themselves, their country and units, is to restore confidence in the future leaders of our country.
These young people have no idea what the Young Offenders Act is all about. To the parents of these young people, I ask you to share my pride in them. Give them a hug and tell them you are proud of them. I ask all members of the House to join with me in a heartfelt “well done”.
The EnvironmentMr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, our society must face many environmental problems such as smog and climate changes. After playing a key role during the Earth Summit held in Rio in 1992, the Canadian government's attitude progressively deteriorated as regards these challenges.
In Cartagena, in February 1999, Canada, along with four other states, opposed the adoption of a strict biosafety protocol. The same thing happened at a meeting held in January, and again in Nairobi, a few days ago. A UN spokesperson even said that it was the first time in 20 years that environmental negotiations led to such a complete rout.
In this environment week, it is deplorable that Canada refuses to sign that protocol, which would establish a set of international rules to regulate the transborder movement of living genetically modified organisms.
Once again, the nice rhetoric of the Minister of the Environment does not result in concrete action.
Organization Of American States Ministers' ConferenceMr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Canadians the Windsor community hosted a very successful Organization of American States Ministers' Conference from June 4 to 6, 2000.
A thousand volunteers under the able direction of an outstanding business and community leader, Mr. Tom Joy, helped to welcome delegates from the entire hemisphere. The conference provided an opportunity for Canada to advance proposals for improving human rights and strengthening democracy in countries that are truly in need of our leadership and support.
I offer special thanks to Tom Joy, chair of the Windsor host committee, and all the volunteers who contributed to this successful event.
MunicipalitiesMr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, municipalities are the level of government closest to home. City officials hear from local people every day and know whether their city needs essentials like upgrades to water systems or sewage treatment facilities.
However, the latest Statistics Canada report revealed Ottawa had an $11.3 billion surplus while municipalities slipped back into deficits. It is time for this government to respect Canada's constitution in its tax policies, not just in words.
Ottawa must quickly reduce its share of the tax pie so the endangered taxpayers can afford to let their city proceed with essential infrastructure rather than filtering their tax dollars through Ottawa first, just so Liberals can look generous when they give a small fraction back.
The Canadian Alliance supports infrastructure spending. However, we also recognize that federal tax cuts are needed so that these local decisions can once again be left to the discretion of local taxpayers and their city council rather than being used as make work programs or political pork barrelling.
EmploymentMs. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over two million new jobs have been created since the Liberal government took office in 1993. What a record.
The employment rate was 6.6% in May, the lowest since March 1976. In one year employment has grown by over 400,000 jobs. In fact, employment rose in every category including employment of women and youth.
I hope the opposition can handle such good news on a Friday.
Sergeant Tommy PrinceMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Tommy Prince was Canada's most decorated aboriginal soldier. Today his name lives on in his home community of Winnipeg with the creation of Canada's only aboriginal cadet corps, the 553 Sergeant Tommy Prince Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps.
Winnipeg Centre is a troubled community in many ways. Aboriginal youth in the core area often grow up exposed to crime and violence. Brutal murders have taken place just feet away from where the 553 held its inaugural parade, murders where the victims and the murderers were no older than the young cadets who marched so proudly before us.
It is heartening that these young people can now develop a sense of belonging in their cadet corps rather than less healthy choices that could result in crime, prison or worse.
Congratulations to Donald Mackie, CD, for his tireless efforts in bringing the 553 to fruition; Mr. Garry Grouette, president of the Central Community Centre; and, the National Aboriginal Veterans Association for its support.
Canadian EconomyMr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention the economic news that we received this morning. Today's economic update speaks volumes about the merits of the federal government's policies.
Since this government took office, in 1993, over two million jobs have been created in Canada. This is proof that the economy is thriving.
According to the figures released by Statistics Canada this morning, the unemployment rate is at its lowest in over two decades, at 6.5%, which is two tenths of a point lower than in May. This is very good news.
It shows that the policies to promote investments and the pursuit of sound management are working well, with the result that we have a strong economy right across the country.
I would be remiss if I did not mention in particular the unemployment rate in Ottawa's national capital region, which is at 5.1%. Such a rate should give hope to all those who are looking for work. Jobs are being created. Let us not lose hope.
Canada GazetteMs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the Canada Gazette Parts I and II are now available on the Internet in a alternate format which makes it accessible to persons with disabilities.
The Department of Public Works and Government Services is committed to providing all Canadians with equal access to Government of Canada information.
As the Government of Canada moves toward connecting Canadians on-line, the Canada Gazette on the Internet will play an important role in enabling more Canadians to be part of the democratic process by commenting on the proposed regulations published in the Canada Gazette .
This initiative reflects the federal government's commitment to work with other governments, the private and voluntary sectors and all citizens to build communities in which Canadians with disabilities are fully included.
The Canada Gazette is available on the Government of Canada website at www.canada.gc.ca.
Employment InsuranceJean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Madawaska—Restigouche, whom I have the honour of representing here in the House, I want to express the frustration we feel with regard to the changes that were made to the employment insurance map for that region.
People will have to work at least 595 hours, instead of the 425 hours currently required, to be eligible for benefits, for which they are still paying astronomically high premiums.
Moreover, these same people will be entitled to only 18 weeks of benefits, compared to 28 weeks as is currently the case. And all that while there is a $30 billion surplus in the EI fund.
These changes do not take into account the social and economic reality of the Madawaska region. A large percentage of the jobs in our region are seasonal, whether it be in forestry, agriculture, construction or tourism.
I call upon the Minister of Human Resources Development to review the current proposal and to join the Madawaska region with the economic region of Restigouche-Albert.
HealthMr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, here is a wish list for the people of the Prince George: three anaesthetists, two orthopaedic surgeons, two radiologists, one plastic surgeon and ten general practitioners. The reason for this list is because over the last year and a half the Prince George Regional Hospital, which serves north central B.C., has lost all these health care professionals.
To say that we have a crisis at the Prince George Regional Hospital is indeed an understatement, and the blame for this crisis lies directly at the feet of this Minister of Health and this Liberal government which has gutted the health care system.
While the Minister of Health stands in the House every day and claims that Canada's health care system is so important to him, people all across Canada and in my riding who need critical health care are asking “Why does he not just recognize that there is a crisis in health care in Canada?”
I say to the government and to the health minister that if they really care about the state of health care in this country, they should stop talking about it and fix it.
FisheriesMr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, many fishermen in my riding have expressed concern that the federal minister of fisheries has excluded them from the negotiation process with native fishermen.
Like everyone else in the House, they heard the minister continually mention that there needed to be a negotiated settlement to address the Marshall decision and that it would require participation by all stakeholders.
Well non-native fishermen have been excluded from discussions, discussions that will have a direct impact on their livelihoods. They have heard about licences, boats and gear being provided to the natives but have no details about the extent of their use. They are concerned that the boats that were provided to the aboriginal communities could be used to expand the controversial summer food fishery.
Why does the minister not share the same concerns? Has he taken appropriate steps to prevent such a situation, and, if so, could he please tell us what they are?
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to light Canada's aboriginal veterans, an issue of grave importance that requires an honourable resolution of recognizing our mistreatment and disrespect of returning veterans.
The aboriginal veterans of first nations, Métis and Inuit ancestry were amongst the first to volunteer and contribute to defend our freedoms and our nation.
Canada must recognize the unfair treatment of past governments disallowing their qualifications to the same benefits and privileges of returning veterans from these horrible conflicts and engagements.
A recent tour of Holland demonstrated the emotional gratitude that our liberated allies extended toward our visiting veterans in these homelands where peace, freedom and democracy are the gifts and the legacies that all people appreciate.
Let us salute our veterans with respect and lay to rest all the inequities and injustices that tarnish the glory and honour that bestows a warrior. We must extend to all our heroes, our brothers and sisters in arms, a gesture of our appreciation and recognition of their rightful place in our history.
Greenhouse GasesMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal-provincial meeting of environment ministers just ended. In this Environment Week, we must push the federal government on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions.
The Liberal government's record on the smog issue and, more generally, on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, has been branded as disastrous by the commissioner for the environment and for sustainable development. Emissions have increased considerably, and there is no sign of an eventual improvement in the quality of the air we breathe.
Quebec's record on this issue is clearly better, mainly because of its energy choices. The federal government must now do its share and take its responsibilities. To distribute the efforts in the fight against pollution, the development of a strategy which would take into account, in a fair manner, each province's record in this area is essential.
The time has come for the federal government to meet its commitments and to make sustainable development a true priority.
All Saints' Anglican ChurchMs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, along with people of faith around the world, the congregation of All Saints' Anglican Church in Westboro has dedicated itself to the message of Jubilee, the renewal every 50 years of a society of love and justice.
The people of All Saints have given me a petition to present to the government, to honour the agreement it made in Beijing, to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women at all stages of life, to remove obstacles to active women's participation in all spheres of public and private life, and to promote social development that recognizes empowering the poor, particularly women living in poverty.
The people of All Saints calls on the government to acknowledge both its pledges in Beijing and at the world summit in Copenhagen for social development, and to create a better society for all Canadians.

Oral Question Period
HealthMr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today the provinces and territories are releasing a unanimous report on federal health care spending. We have received a copy of the report and it shows that the federal government has virtually turned its back on its responsibility to fund health care.
While the minister uses tax points to give the illusion of larger federal spending, in realty federal per capita spending has fallen 27% since this government came to power.
Why is the health care of Canadians such a low priority to the government?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the transfers to the provinces today are at an all time high. That means we have put our money where our mouth is.
We believe that health care is a priority. We have also said that we want to sit down with the provinces and work out an agreement on the fundamental nature of how to protect the Canada Health Act. Our money will be there in addition to what we have already done.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about some facts. This year Canadians uncovered a black hole of mismanagement into which billions of federal dollars are poured every year.
While federal spending on grants and contributions will reach $17 billion this year, total spending on health and social transfers will only be $15.5 billion. That is more spent on boondoggles than on hospital beds.
Why does the federal government choose to spend more on grants and contributions than it does on the health care of Canadians?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, let us look at our transfers to the provinces: over $30 billion in terms of the CHST and the tax points that go with it; and ,in addition, we have about $10 billion in equalization payments that go to the provinces and that can be dedicated to health care.
Our transfers for health care to the provinces are at an all time high. We have said that we will increase them when we can get an agreement to protect the Canada Health Act. That is our commitment to health care.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about this government's disgraceful legacy on the issue of health care.
When medicare started the federal government picked up half the cost of health care; that was 50 cents on every dollar. It now picks up just 10.2 cents of every health care dollar spent.
This government has a bigger surplus than it has ever had. Canadians are more worried about health care than they have ever been in the past. They want a simple answer to a very simple question: When is this minister going to contribute his fair share to health care?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, let us look at the breakdown of how our transfers apply. When we include the tax points, which the provinces have not said they want to give back to us, we are funding fully 31% of all publicly provided health care in Canada.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is more like a meltdown, what is happening on the other side.
The provincial territorial report to be released today is unanimous. Every province agrees that the federal government has failed to live up to its responsibilities to fund health care.
I will quote from the report. It says:
A long-term look at spending on health care reveals a federal government withdrawing from its partnership with the provinces and territories.
While the government is planning to buy the next election with health care dollars, there are 200,000 Canadians on waiting lists who need help now.
Will the minister properly address the funding issue today and deal with it in a reasonable fashion instead of waiting until the next election?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, let us just look at the numbers.
The CHST is $31 billion. If we go back to the old formula of 54% of that going for health, that is about $17 billion. In addition the federal government spends another $3 billion itself on health care, which brings our expenditure up to $20 billion out of the $64 billion which is spent every year by governments on health care in Canada.
That is—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Peace River.
Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the health minister sits in his chair and does not answer while he lets the number cruncher over there do it for him.
The provinces want to meet with the federal government next week to discuss this issue and this report. We have learned that the federal government has reserved rooms in Vancouver for June 15 and 16 just in case it changes its mind.
Will the minister commit today to attend this meeting, or will he dodge it like he does his responsibility to health care?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say that we welcome the report which is to be delivered today from the provinces and territories. I have not yet seen it but I hope very much that it is a constructive contribution to a dialogue we are having with the provinces on health care and its funding into the future.
As Minister of Health I believe strongly that there should and must be more federal money in health care. All we ask is that it go to support the public health care system, not to fund tax cuts in Ontario. We ask that it go to make the changes that are needed to make it a truly sustainable health care system. I look forward to talking about those plans with my counterparts in the provinces.
Parental LeaveMrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week the Prime Minister has proven two things to us as far as parental insurance is concerned. First, that his objective is not to respond to the present needs of young families but rather to raise the profile of his government. Second, that he is woefully ignorant of developments in Quebec's parental insurance project when he states that the federal government is in the lead role in this matter.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the parental insurance project was announced by the Government of Quebec as far back as February 1996 as the third component of its family policy?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the federal government is the leader as far as parental leave is concerned, and has been for some time. It is fully entitled to broaden this system in the interest of all Canadians. If the hon. member is serious about this, I wonder why she does not support our efforts for the entire population.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the government is clearly determined not to understand something that is, after all, simple. The decision by Quebec dates back to February 1996 and led to a consensus at the November 1996 economic summit.
Right from the start, right from February 1997, Quebec has attempted to negotiate the mechanisms of this program with Ottawa. Despite Quebec's offer on several occasions to resume negotiations, nothing has yet come of it.
What is holding back the government from merely showing a bit of open-mindedness, from sitting down at the table and negotiating in this matter?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. member does not possess the facts.
In 1997, the PQ government chose to walk away from the negotiating table with the federal government, which is one more reason why we decided to move ahead in the interest of all Canadians.
If the separatist PQ government wants to do anything more, it is perfectly entitled to do so.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, parental insurance is a cohesive element of the family policy that has been developed in Quebec over the past 20 years. The Quebec society deems it essential to support all young families. In spite of the Quebec government's offer, reiterated today by minister Marois to the Minister of Human Resources Development, the government persists in its refusal.
What will it take for the Prime Minister to adopt an attitude that will allow us to meet the current needs of all young families?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, this is the reason why, in the throne speech and in the budget speech, we announced our intention to broaden the scope of parental leave.
We want to work in the best interests of poor families and of all families in Quebec and across the country. Again, I wonder why the Bloc Quebecois is not interested in supporting our serious efforts to help all Canadian families.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the issue of parental insurance has been the subject of discussions in Quebec since February 1996. Having received support at the November 1996 economic summit, Quebec has been trying to negotiate such a program with Ottawa since 1997.
Instead of giving a positive reply to that request to negotiate, the federal government, in its September 1999 throne speech and its February 2000 budget, did not hesitate to propose a measure that willfully excludes thousands of young families from its program.
How can the government justify its decision to block a process that has the support of all Quebecers and to merely propose an incomplete, unfair and unsatisfactory measure?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, we did not block any program. If something is unfair, it is the hon. member's question; it is unfair and it is not based on facts, because we work for all families, including young families and poor families.
Gasoline PricesMr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, rising energy costs are responsible for half the hike in inflation. Consumers are being gouged twice, once for their gasoline and once for everything else, thanks to inflation.
The average price of gas in Canada is at a new record of 75.3 cents a litre. According to StatsCan, people now spend more on energy costs and their cars and transportation than they do on food, clothing and shoes combined.
In view of this threat to inflation, will the government consider giving consumers in Canada a gas tax holiday this summer? If not, what exactly is its action plan to help consumers cope with high gas prices?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, why has the hon. member not brought this message and request to the attention of his provincial government? It is clear that the provincial governments have the authority to regulate gasoline prices at the retail level in times like these. Why is he remaining silent and not going after his own provincial government?
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not buy excuses from the oil companies and they are sick and tired of Liberals passing the buck.
There has to be a time when government stands up and protects consumers from price gouging. The government has been given numerous suggestions. Today I give it another one. How about a federal energy price commission to regulate gas prices at the wholesale level?
Will the government support the establishment of an energy price commission at the federal level and if not, just what action will it take to protect consumers from gouging at the pumps?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the provinces now have the power to regulate the price of gasoline. That is within provincial jurisdiction. We believe that is where the legislative competence lies.
FisheriesMark Muise: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Is he concerned that boats he has provided to the aboriginal communities as part of his solution to the Marshall decision could be used to expand the controversial food fishery? What steps has he taken to ensure that this does not happen?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue of the purchase of boats and turning boats over to people who are new entrants in the fishery obviously has some aspects which are of concern. We are watching the problem closely. We want to make sure that the boats that will be used will be used for licensed activity, not illegal activity. I can assure the hon. gentleman that this issue is a matter which has the close attention of the department.
Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is prepared to offer Burnt Church licences for other fish species if they would sign an agreement with the government.
Can the minister confirm whether this is true? Would such an agreement be in line with agreements signed with other bands? If not, does the minister not have an obligation to treat all bands equally?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, obviously the government wants to treat all bands equally. That is why we are trying to get agreements with all bands.
I am happy to report to the House that as of May 30, 18 agreements have been signed with first nations. The government has five more agreements in principle with other first nations and we hope that there will be signatures soon. I believe there has been good progress in the negotiations. I am certainly hopeful that there will be agreement overall in due course.
Airline IndustryMs. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government was extremely indignant when the official opposition raised concerns about a potential strike at Air Canada. The parliamentary secretary stated that my concern was premature because in her words, “there will be a negotiated settlement.”
If the government is so confident that there will be a negotiated settlement, why at the very moment when it was criticizing the opposition for raising this issue the government was in fact drafting legislation to block a strike?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is wrong. She should not be raising suggestions which could inhibit the parties in reaching an early settlement through collective bargaining. Why does she not act constructively in this matter for a change?
Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of the government's duplicity. The Liberals say one thing for public consumption and do the exact opposite behind closed doors.
Government ministers can utilize the fleet of Challenger jets for their air travel but the average Canadian cannot. The public deserves to have an answer. Will the government permit a labour dispute at Air Canada to disrupt the travel plans of Canadians this summer?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should withdraw her unjustified complaint of duplicity. It is unparliamentary. It is unworthy of her. If she is serious as a parliamentarian and if she has any sense of parliamentary ethics at all, she had better get up and withdraw that, otherwise she will stand condemned of being the very type of person she wrongfully alleges that government ministers are.
The government wants to see a negotiated settlement. We look forward to a negotiated settlement and continued operations of the airline system for all Canadians.
I do not know why the hon. member is trying to slander other members of parliament. It does not help us in these efforts.
Canada DayMr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to put a simple question to the government, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage will understand me correctly.
How much money is the federal government planning to spend outside Quebec on Canada Day celebrations?
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, we no longer need a calendar to know when Canada Day is. Since the Bloc Quebecois has been in the House, every year it is the same old story, questioning the fact that Canadians in every province of this country want to celebrate their belonging to this country.
This is what we do, and we will keep on doing it with pride.
Pierre De Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important for the public to know why the government is keeping from us a piece of information which seems to me rather innocuous. Is it a state secret or does it threaten national defence?
Could it be that the minister asked her colleague responsible for the CIO to find new funds for her after giving all of her $5 million to Quebec? Or is it in fact because Canada Day is only celebrated in Quebec?
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, obviously, my hon. colleague does not listen to the news. Yesterday, the National Capital Commission announced its plans to celebrate Canada Day here, in Ottawa, on July 1.
I invite every Canadian, from every province and territory, who can join us to come here on July 1 to celebrate with us the birthday of the greatest country in the world.
ImmigrationMr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it has been a year now since hundreds of migrants arrived in rusting hulks off the west coast. Some have been returned, many have disappeared and many remain in detention. Recently seven escaped in Prince George. They fled into thick bush swarming with mosquitoes and prowled by bears where there is little, if any, food. Fortunately they were recaptured before they could come to any harm.
The government's refugee policy is a sham. It is a tremendous burden on taxpayers and it is so slow the claimants will put their own lives at risk rather than wait any longer. When will the minister speed up the process and make it fair for everybody?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for the question. With the co-operation of the member, his critic and his party, Bill C-31 which is presently before a standing committee will be passed so that we can improve the refugee determination system.
We all agree that it needs to be faster. We want to make it faster but keep it fair. With the support of the hon. member's party, Bill C-31 will achieve that goal.
Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, last week it was learned that about 30 juveniles who arrived on those boats and were placed in foster homes rather than detained have just plain disappeared. Some had gone AWOL before but instead of being detained when they were caught, they were just returned to the foster homes.
Authorities surmise that those who have now disappeared have made their way into the United States. Who knows what kind of nightmares their lives will become: crime, prostitution and sweatshop slaves.
How can the minister defend policies that contribute to the misery of young lives?
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of the arrival of minors and the international obligations we have to detain only as a last resort is of great concern given the fact that we know we are dealing in a shared jurisdiction.
Most of the minors who came last summer were not detained; they were handed over to the rightful jurisdiction of the provinces. We know that group homes are not secure. In some provinces the decision has been made to detain minors because of fear of flight.
We are reviewing our entire policy as it relates to detention of minors with a view to doing not only what is in the best interest of the child, but ensuring that we are living up to our international obligations.
Employment InsuranceMr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the proposed reform of the employment insurance plan, the North Shore will be the most heavily penalized area.
Whereas the effective unemployment rate stands at 17.2%, it will be set à 12% by HRDC, and the maximum number of weeks of benefits will drop from 32 to 24.
Can the minister explain to the people in the North Shore area how this is going to meet the needs of thousands of workers who will be excluded from the EI program?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is referring to the plight of seasonal workers on the north shore and the particular problems that group presents to us. That is why the minister is working with the council of labour market ministers with particular focus on joint programming that will assist this particular group.
We are also learning more about their plight through the monitoring and assessment report which we bring forward on a regular basis. Decisions will be made about the future and what we can do to help these people in concert with the provinces.
Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Speaker, people in my area are going to fight this. On June 5, more than 500 citizens of the North Shore have demonstrated against this reform, and they have asked to meet with the minister.
When is she going to meet with them?
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, work is ongoing on this file.
As far as unemployment is concerned, it is my great pleasure to share with the House the fact that the unemployment figures are at their best in 24 years at 6.6%. The unemployment figures for women are at their best in 25 years at 5.4%. Even the stubbornly high rate of unemployment for youth has dropped 2.5% in the last year. This is good news.
AgricultureMr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Bill C-34, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act, is linked to a memorandum of understanding between the wheat board and the minister responsible, in other words, an agreement between the minister and the minister.
The minister clearly told the standing committee that the MOU was prepared in consultation with stakeholders, but the grain companies, the railways and farm organizations that appeared have all denied this. Just who did the minister consult?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know for a fact, because I was present for a number of those meetings with the minister in charge of the wheat board and the Minister of Transport, that those negotiations did take place with all those the hon. member just named.
Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I take it then that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is saying that all the people who appeared before us were liars.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I do not know that it is appropriate for a member to imply motive to another member using a word which is clearly unparliamentary. I would ask the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands to please withdraw the word liar and proceed with the question.
Lee Morrison: Will the minister withdraw his remarks about the witnesses?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.
Human Resources Development CanadaMr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have learned that elderly citizens have been the victims of administrative decisions by HRDC which are utterly unfair and unacceptable. The department went as far as to withdraw amounts from their bank accounts without their knowledge to recover overpayments.
Should the Minister of Human Resources Development not be ashamed of herself for allowing this harassment of ordinary citizens and the withdrawing of money from their accounts, when she is unable to recover millions of dollars in grants and to produce the invoices of Placeteco, which has misappropriated more that $1 million?
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, I addressed this question yesterday. It is true that there was a mistake made by an employee and the situation has now been corrected.
Verbal and written apologies have been given to the family. We understand that the family has accepted these apologies. We have asked the official to ensure that the situation does not happen again.
Rural DevelopmentMr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because rural communities in my riding and across Canada are asking what our government has done recently for rural Canada, could the Secretary of State for Rural Development please update the House on what recent actions the federal government has undertaken to benefit agricultural rural communities?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government believes that rural development needs to be a bottom up and not a top down driven process. The communities themselves must establish their priorities and establish the strategies to pursue community development.
The federal government acts as a means to provide a set of tools for these communities. I was pleased to announce, along with my colleague on May 25, the Canadian agricultural rural communities initiative which will provide $9.3 million to rural communities to assist them with community development. It is a great example of the bottom up approach to community development.
The EconomyMr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it seems that the government is engaging in a pre-emptive strike of misinformation about our plan 17. It is really unfortunate because the Minister of Finance is stating things publicly that misrepresent what the plan actually says.
For example, he implied that government revenues would go down $20 billion under our plan. The truth is that over five years, while reducing the tax rates to 17%, government revenue would increase every year. Where does the Minister of Finance get his numbers from?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased that the hon. member has given me a chance to talk about their flat tax.
Let us hear from others: “The Liberals will tear this flat tax apart, telling everyone it is just a tax break for the rich, and it is”. That was Jim Silye, former Reform MP.
“In principle the single tax rate is a bad idea. It is a wise and long established principle that someone lucky enough to reach the $100,000 mark of income should pay a few more pennies of that dollar in tax than the person who only manages to reach $35,000”. That is from the Edmonton Journal .
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, it seems that some correctly predicted that the Liberal Party would be duplicitous about the facts in this statement.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Elk Island did not refer to a specific minister and he did not refer to a specific member. He is quite in order.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, let me put the facts on the table. Our plan has the approval of no less than economist Robert Mundell, a Nobel prize winner, who said that it was a very good and workable plan. Furthermore, we ran the econometric model, the same model the finance minister uses with his plan to parliament, WEFA—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. secretary of state.
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, of course it will cost us a fortune and what it will do is really hurt the middle class and benefit unfairly the very rich.
Let me quote: “I think Canadians have become used to a progressive tax system where the higher your income, the higher the rate of tax you pay. There are certain basic expenses of life one has to go through and it is a lot easier to do it at $250,000 than $50,000. From that perspective a flat tax is inequitable. It is not progressive”. Who said that? Ernie Eves.
HealthGordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the U.S. announced plans to phase out Dursban, a widely used household pesticide, because it is a known threat to children's health. The government would rather wait and hope the chemical company that makes millions in sales will volunteer to stop production on its own accord.
Does the Minister of Health not think Canadian children deserve the same kind of protection from their government as the U.S. has given to its children?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, American and Canadian authorities are working closely together in this regard. The American withdrawal from the market is voluntary and has been negotiated with the company.
We were negotiating the same agreement with the manufacturer in Canada. It was in place until two days ago when the manufacturer reneged on it. As a result, we are to impose unilaterally, using our authority as a government, that the product come off the market. When we finish the scientific work to uphold that approach that is the step we will take to protect the health of all Canadians and particularly children.
Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. It sounds like that is a very positive move.
I would indicate that the city of Halifax is planning to assist its children to live in a healthy, safe community by looking at a bylaw which hopefully will be passed to ban the use of pesticides near playgrounds, hospitals and sources of drinking water.
Last month the House of Commons environment committee asked for a phase-out of cosmetic use. The minister's own party policy is to ban cosmetic use of pesticides. Has the minister any further plans to reduce any chemicals other than this one?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, we will do what is necessary to protect the health of Canadians and particularly children.
Let me emphasize to the member that the government has discretionary power under the act. As in the case of the product which the member mentioned in his first question, where there is science to indicate that the products are a threat to the health of Canadians we will act to get them off the market.
Persons With DisabilitiesJean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, several of my fellow citizens told me that the changes made in 1995 to the eligibility rules for the tax deduction for persons with disabilities make it very difficult, if not impossible, to benefit from that deduction.
Is the Minister of National Revenue prepared to recognize this fact and will he consult his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to correct this unfair situation for persons with disabilities and thus give them the means to improve their quality of life?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the system to which the hon. member is referring has been in existence for several years. All the members of this House have constituents who, at some point in time, benefited from that tax deduction, which is provided for persons with a severe handicap.
Each application is reviewed very objectively by the department, to make sure of course that those who are entitled to the deduction benefit from it. The files are reassessed periodically for the benefit of Canadians and to take into account any change in people's health.
Highway ConstructionJean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, following the 1993 federal election, former transport minister Doug Young transferred to his own riding funds that had already been earmarked for the major highway project in the riding of Madawaska.
This is a very important project for the region's economic future.
Can the Minister of Transport tell us whether he intends to undertake negotiations with the Government of New Brunswick to reach an agreement, so that this highway can become a reality?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce to the House that negotiations have been ongoing for a lengthy period of time, with the co-operation of all transport ministers and governments from each and every province, on the development of a national highway policy.
AgricultureMrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food knows very well that trade is the lifeblood of our Canadian agriculture and agri-food industry.
That being said, I would like the minister to tell the House how our Canadian government intends to assist the Quebec sector in exporting its products around the world.
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, we were pleased to make use of some programs in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for food promotion yesterday.
We announced to Club Export, the export arm of the industry in Quebec, a $1,3 million contribution and to maple producers in Quebec support to the extent of over $750,000 for their industry to promote maple products out of Quebec under the wonderful trademark of Maple Mark.
The EconomyDick Harris: Mr. Speaker, WEFA, an econometrics firm that the government uses to crunch its own figures, has clearly given a huge thumbs up to the alliance's 17% tax solution. As well, the Library of Parliament has also given its approval saying that it is indeed workable.
In the minister's statements where he slanders the alliance's plan, why does he continue to deny the credibility of WEFA and the Library of Parliament? Why does he do that?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the spokesman for the duplicitous alliance party. Under the Reform flat tax examples, a single taxpayer earning $30,000 would receive a $624 tax cut, while a single taxpayer earning $200,000 would receive, get this, a $22,150 tax cut.
Is it fair that someone earning almost seven times the income of a person earning $30,000 should receive a tax cut 35 times greater? No wonder the alliance party will go down the tubes whenever it has to face the public. It is there for the rich, not for the ordinary Canadian.
AfricaMrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, having last week declared that its war with Eritrea was over, Ethiopia is this week resuming operations on all fronts, in what seems far more like all out war than border skirmishes. Because of the international community's lack of interest, negotiations are dragging out and there is a threat of greater famine.
In order for this border war to be brought to an end, is the Minister of Foreign Affairs prepared to propose to the UN Security Council that peacekeepers be sent in, or are we to conclude that these countries are too poor to merit the attention of the international community?
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, ten days ago, I was in Addis Ababa to plead the case for a ceasefire in the region, in order to save lives in Eritrea, and of course in Ethiopia as well.
I accept with great pleasure the feelings expressed by the hon. member and I am sure that all members of this House share them.
Aboriginal AffairsRick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday afternoon representatives of the Grassy Narrows First Nations stood outside parliament and asked for sustainable and fair forest management. The communities recognize the good working relationship with Tembec but grave concerns about Abitibi were raised.
The provincial government and its allocation of clear-cutting are killing their traditional ways of life and land use. They spoke of poisons in their waters, on their lands and in their animals. Will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development commit today to an investigation of these serious concerns?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member's question is a very important one. The issue of first nations people on their traditional territories and their relationship with provincial governments and with the private sector is one that is important to all of us.
I can confirm to him that the minister and our department have made resources available to the first nations in order for them to get to the negotiating table to resolve these issues where they should be resolved.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationMark Muise: Mr. Speaker, could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the CBC's decision to cut regional news programming by two-thirds is an attempt to make regional news programming less relevant to Canadians, therefore helping it to justify its future cancellation? Does he personally support the scaling down?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the hon. member would come back to those articles written by the economists at McGill University about the previous Conservative government.
If he had done that I would have stated, and I will now, that over two million new jobs have been created since the Liberal government took office in 1993. Unemployment is 4.8% lower than the 11.4% the government inherited shortly after taking office in October 1993, the largest decline in unemployment under the leadership of any Canadian government in over 50 years.
Why did the hon. member not get up and ask me that question so I could have put those facts on the table, as I have done anyway?
LabourMr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. When will Canada ratify the International Labour Organization convention on youth and child labour?
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to inform my colleague and all members of the House that on June 6 Canada did indeed ratify the ILO convention on the elimination of the worst forms of child labour.
I would remind the House that because labour is a shared responsibility we need the support of all territories and provinces to ratify conventions. As such, the Minister of Labour is very pleased to congratulate and thank all ministers of labour throughout the provinces for their co-operation. In addition—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.
HealthJay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I want to quote directly from the provincial health ministers' report that is due to be released later today:
—provinces and territories have responded to the financial pressures by more than backfilling the federal funding cuts and have added even more money to their health budgets. On the other hand, the report indicates the dramatic and long term reductions of the federal cash contribution both in relative and absolute terms.
Why will the government not live up to its commitment to provide adequate health care for all Canadians?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, let us look at what we have done. In the past two years we have increased the transfers to the provinces for health care by fully 25%. The transfers to the provinces are at an all time high. That is our commitment as demonstrated by what we have done. We have also said that when the provinces will join together with us to secure the future of the Canada Health Act there will be a lot more federal money on the table.
Canadian MilitaryMr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on May 23, Brigadier General Richard Bastien announced in London before a group of Canadian parliamentarians that, in the fall of 2000, a contingent of some 100 Canadian military personnel will be standing on guard at Buckingham Palace in London.
Can the minister tell us how much this parade will cost the Canadian taxpayer?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will begin by thanking the hon. member for his question.
Unfortunately, I must tell him that I do not have the figures in front of me. Had he given me a few minutes of advance notice before question period, I could have obtained the figures he wanted.
I am going to obtain the figures and will then provide the answer.
Workplace SafetyPat Martin: Mr. Speaker, for seven years the government has refused to proclaim part III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. This means that the 500 or so employees on the Hill have no coverage whatsoever under any workplace safety and health legislation.
If the government claims to be concerned about workplace safety, when will it give royal proclamation to part III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act so that Hill employees will enjoy the same coverage that all Canadians enjoy?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that this issue has been brought before the Board of Internal Economy on several occasions in the past.
He will know of course that the House of Commons has established internal mechanisms to deal precisely with this issue outside of the act in question.
At the same time, all members of the House must surely know that the basic principle under which we operate is that it is parliament and members of the House that have to decide when parliament is sitting, when parliament can function. We could never relegate that responsibility to anyone else. It would be wrong and probably unconstitutional.
Canada GamesJean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, very soon the region of Madawaska—Restigouche will be hosting the next Canada Games.
Can the minister tell the House today how negotiations are going with the host society and with the provincial government? Can he guarantee that the federal government will be at the plate to guarantee the best Canada Games ever?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for his question.
Obviously, the Canada Games are probably the most successful event. This is an event where there is full co-operation between the provincial and federal governments. The Government of Canada is already investing close to $4 million over two years on the games. We are also paying all athletes' costs.
Last week, I met with Minister Robichaud during our first Atlantic conference on a national sports policy. We agreed to sit down together here in Ottawa with the responsible minister from New Brunswick two weeks from now. The Canada Games will be held in Campbellton in 2003.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As question period comes to an end, it would be duplicitous of me to leave the impression with the House that the Chair has given its imprimatur to the use of the word duplicity in a cavalier fashion. It is a word that has spice but let us not throw it around capriciously.
This brings question period to an end.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response To PetitionsMr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.
National Arts CentreMauril Bélanger: Madam Speaker, during its last appearance before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, National Arts Centre management volunteered to table a summary of its business plan and operating and capital expenditure budgets for 1999 to 2002.
On behalf of the National Arts Centre, I am tabling that document today.
Committees Of The HouseMr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport.
Pursuant to its order of reference of Thursday, June 1, 2000, your committee has considered Bill C-34, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act.
Special thanks must be given to the men and women in the committee and legislative branch, especially my committee clerk, Guyanne Desforges, who pulled double and even triple duty in a very limited timeframe to achieve this result.
Ivan Grose: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and, I might add, a little surprised, to present in both official languages the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 16, 2000, your committee has considered Bill C-18, an act to amend the criminal code (impaired driving causing death and other matters), and has agreed to report it without amendment.
Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 34th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the issue of confidentiality of the work of the legislative counsel.
I also have the honour to present the 35th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. If the House gives its consent, I intend to give concurrence in the 35th report later this day.
Energy Price Commission ActJohn Solomon: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-488, an act to establish the Energy Price Commission.

Madam Speaker, Canadians from all over the country are very concerned about price gouging, in particular with respect to gasoline and diesel fuel. The Canadian population does not believe the big oil companies. They are sick and tired of the Liberal's buck-passing on this issue.
We regulate stamps, cable television and many other things. The bill I am introducing today will indeed establish an energy price commission which will regulate the wholesale and the retail price of motor fuels, including diesel, propane, heating oil, natural gas and electric power.
The purpose of price regulation is to avoid unreasonable increases that affect the cost of living and depress business activity. The bill will facilitate reasonable consistency in prices from province to province allowing for production and distribution costs. The regulation further minimizes the risk of collusion in pricing, which many Canadians believe is happening, and prevents dominant suppliers from setting unreasonable prices.
The major objective of the bill is to provide some transparency in the pricing of fuel and energy. The refiners are not transparent and there are vertically integrated companies. I believe there has to be a time when the government stands up and takes some action to protect consumers, as this bill will.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Committees Of The HouseDerek Lee: Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 35th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to present the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsJocelyne Girard-Bujold: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House a petition signed by 243 constituents from the riding of Jonquière.
The petitioners call on the Canadian government to pass a resolution aimed at stopping the monopoly of the international oil cartel in order to reduce predatory pricing of crude oil, and to allocate sufficient funds to research into alternative energy sources so that, in the near future, Canadians would no longer be forced to turn to oil as a main energy source.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to table another petition addressed to the Canadian government and signed by 50 people.
The petitioners call on Parliament to take all necessary action so that Canadians and their representatives are consulted on the principle of importing MOX plutonium.
Marlene Jennings: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition in the House today that contains several hundred signatures.
The petitioners, as citizens of Canada, are calling on parliament to consider and enact the legislation proposed in private member's bill, Bill C-388, that the House of Commons place a moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides in homes and gardens, and on recreational facilities such as parks and golf courses, until scientific and medical evidence shows that such use is safe and has been presented to parliament and concurred in by a parliamentary committee.
Gordon Earle: Madam Speaker, I am indeed pleased to rise to table three petitions. The first two are petitions from many Canadians who are concerned about the public health care system.
The petitioners recognize that the federal government is funding the health care system at less than 15% of the cost and that this has certainly opened the door to a two tier style American health care system.
The petitioners call upon the federal government to stop the for profit hospitals and restore federal funding for health care, and also to implement a national home care program and a national program for prescription drugs.
Gordon Earle: Madam Speaker, the third petition also deals with health but it concerns the issue of automatic harvesting of organs at death for transplants.
The many people who have signed this petition recognize that the unavailability of organs for transplant causes a lot of difficulty, a long wait, undue suffering and compromised recovery for transplant recipients, and that there is a limited time window for the harvesting of organs.
The petitioners call upon the government to enact legislation to allow automatic harvesting of organs at death for transplants unless specific requests to the contrary have been made.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by many of my constituents asking parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include the provision, as supported in Bill C-340, regarding the rights of spouses' parents, that is the grandparents, to have access to their grandchildren.
At present they are having some difficulties getting access to their grandchildren as a result of the death, separation or divorce of their children.
Ghislain Fournier: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present, in the name of my fellow citizens of the riding of Manicouagan, a petition signed by more than 3,000 people.
The petitioners call on Parliament to maintain the status quo so that the federal ridings of Manicouagan and Charlevoix continue to be part of the previous administrative region of northern Quebec, so as to keep employment insurance eligibility requirements at 420 hours for 32 weeks of benefits.
Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition. These many thousands of Canadians who have come to me feel strongly that the government must take every step possible to save our Canadian public health care system and to stop the two tier American style system which is threatening to move into Canada and to privatize this treasured institution, our not for profit public health care system.
The petitioners believe that the federal government should immediately bring health care funding back up to 25% rather than the 13.5% that is currently given to the provinces as the federal government's share. They feel passionately that we must do everything we can to save our health care system.
John Solomon: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of many Canadians who are very concerned about the Criminal Code of Canada. In particular section 608(3) makes it too easy for a person who has been convicted of a serious crime such as murder, attempted murder, sexual assault, manslaughter and firearms offences involving a term of imprisonment greater than five years to obtain release from custody pending the hearing of their appeal.
The petitioners would like the Government of Canada to amend the criminal code to prevent persons convicted of serious crimes from being released from custody pending the hearing of their appeal, except in very exceptional circumstances.
Questions On The Order PaperDerek Lee: Madam Speaker, I ask that all 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 Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) by the committee and of the motions in Group No. 2.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This morning, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry rose on a point of order concerning two motions which he moved at report stage of Bill C-19, the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, that were ruled out of order.
According to the member, his amendments, which sought to append the Rome Statute to the bill, were aimed at informing the people about the provisions of the treaty.
The Chair examined the issue raised by the hon. member and did some research. According to citation 704 in the sixth edition of Beauchesne's:
It is not necessary to include agreements in bills which have as their purpose the carrying into effect of those agreements.
Moreover, the Chair looked carefully at the scope of the bill and does not believe that the inclusion of the text of the Rome Statute is directly related to Canada's obligations under this treaty.
I am sorry that in this case I cannot accept the arguments or the amendment motions by the hon. member.
Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to this bill with some trepidation because of the largely emotional aspect of it.
Many years ago there was a song that was sung on the radio. It went, “Ain't going to study war no more”. I will not sing it because that may affect negatively on the people on the other side of the House who may rise in derision at my attempt to sing. It was a spiritual song, “Ain't going to study war no more”.
Without exception, all thinking people, all people with any conscience at all, will agree that war is terribly bad. It is really wrong. It is as great an evil as we can think of. Even if it involves only the people who are enlisted, it still involves humans pointing weapons at their fellow humans with the intent to kill them, and success goes to the one who wipes out the other side.
It is a great aberration to our society. It is one that would drive humanists to despair. For many years the humanists have said that we as a humanity are getting better and better but it is quite clear that is not happening. If I were a humanist in the sense of that being a religious faith, my faith would be severely shaken because of the atrocities that have continued through the ages and which continue to this very day. Quite clearly war crimes, atrocities committed in war and indeed even atrocities that are committed outside of war are abhorrent to us.
I think of another phrase. There are some things that are so evil, so offensive, that it is even difficult for us to speak about them. The atrocities of war certainly come into that category. I find it difficult to even think about them let alone speak about them.
I happen to be sandwiched between two generations that have firsthand experience with this. My grandparents and parents were in the middle of such atrocities. My parents were in their very early teens when they escaped from what we affectionately call the old country. They did so under the threat of losing their lives if they stayed. They were able to escape. I have said in the House many times and I will never stop saying it, how grateful I am that their escape was successful, that my grandparents made the decision to make Canada their home and that Canada, with its arms wide open for refugees, accepted our family. I will be forever grateful for that.
I said I was sandwiched between two generations which have had firsthand experience with this. The other side of it is the experiences of my son, who I suppose picked up some of our family values. He spent one summer while he was at university working in third world countries with a Christian relief agency. The stories he told of things that he observed firsthand are enough to make one cry. It is impossible to imagine the things that humans will do to one another. I want to relate just a few.
With a name like Epp, it is not to be unexpected that I have some Mennonite heritage, since that name appears quite frequently in Mennonite circles. My family members in southern Russia at the end of the first world war and during the time of the Russian revolution were considered to be enemies of the revolution because they would not take up arms in order to annihilate fellow human beings. They thought that was morally wrong so they would not do it. As a result my family and all other Mennonite families were considered by the revolutionaries to be enemies of the revolution. Hence they became targets.
Many times late at night, sometimes after midnight, their homes would be attacked by the revolutionaries. Because they knew that the people who inhabited those homes were not for the revolution, they were simply taken out and shot. Three of my maternal grandfather's brothers lost their lives. It was a miracle that my grandfather survived in that particular occurrence. There were many other cases.
I read not too long ago The Diary of Anna Baerg who underwent some of these atrocities and wrote about them in a diary not unlike The Diary of Anne Frank . I recommend that book to all members. As a matter of fact, the government House leader had a copy of that book and lent it to me since he knew of my interest in it. I read the book carefully and with great interest because it represented the things that my own family went through.
She relates some of the atrocities about the people who were summarily shot, people she knew and lived with, her neighbours. She indicated how one girl was not shot. She said in her book that there are some things worse than death, and Madam Speaker, you and I know what she is talking about. I cannot help but grieve when I think of the things people are willing to do to others.
My son worked in different places in Africa, in southern Sudan, Somalia and Rwanda. He worked in Croatia. In Croatia a home was set up for women who suffered terribly in the conflict. He told me stories that broke my heart about things that were done to children while their mothers watched. The stories are so detestable that I cannot and will not speak about them though the picture is very vivid in my mind.
I do not know what the answer is. We have before us a bill to bring to justice the people who do these things.
My son and his wife went to Rwanda. The government provided them with a school so they could provide housing for the hundreds of children whose parents were killed in the conflict. To kill parents in front of their children and to leave the children on their own is a huge atrocity.
My son and his wife had as their first job to clean the school. The school was filled with bullet holes. The enemies had entered the school when it was in operation and when the so-called soldiers left, every student and teacher in the school had been shot and subsequently died. My son's job was to clean up all the mess on the walls. That school was used to house the children and give them some shelter and love.
Madam Speaker, I see your signal and cannot believe that I have only covered my preamble.
Canada's involvement in reducing the crime of war throughout the country is what we should be emphasizing. Let us help to spread the message of love and forgiveness and learn to live with one another so these things do not happen. Yes, we must to the degree that we are able, help to restrain the evil which pervades our country and our very world and which leads to the hideous atrocities committed against women, children and men.
Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in turn to speak to the second group of amendments to Bill C-19 to implement the Rome Statute in Canada, which will help prepare for the creation of the International Criminal Court and recognize that Canada has obligations.
I in turn wish to congratulate the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on its work. I must say that I have been on two other committees during my parliamentary life and I have greatly appreciated the committee's ability to work in a non-partisan manner on a number of issues.
This was certainly the case for this bill, and I congratulate the committee chair. I also pay tribute to all members and to the departmental representatives who appeared before us. We worked hard to come up with the best legislation possible for Canada.
That having been said, I also wish to point out that it became clear in the course of our work and also from what was said by the witnesses who appeared before us from the department, or from one of the other departments, that this bill was progressive, but that it could be even more so, especially with respect to jurisdiction and immunity. It was on these two issues in particular that the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry moved the amendments which I seconded. Yes, we salute this bill.
We salute the work done to improve it, through the good faith of all parties on the committee. I also point out that this bill can be improved further. Some witnesses who appeared before the committee even admitted that, if has not yet been improved, it could be improved later on, and in fact the discussion we brought about this morning will pave the way for the committee's subsequent work, although we would like the government to agree this morning to broaden the scope of the bill.
I will now give our reasons for having moved some of these amendments. First, we would have liked the government to have admitted, by adopting an amendment, that the present bill has to do with the performance of Canada's obligations under the Rome Statute. If that is the objective, why not spell it out in the bill? This leaves a doubt.
And this doubt is all the greater because in committee and now, this morning, the Chair has told us that the government did not want to include the Rome Statute and its amendments in a schedule. I note that, in the ruling just now, the Chair cited Beauchesne as saying that it is not necessary to include agreements or treaties in implementing statutes. Our concern is not with the need to do so, but the fact that this has already been done in other Canadian implementing statutes.
As far as this law is concerned, we need to provide people with some information, as the colleague who spoke before me has already stated so eloquently, because the International Criminal Court is still not well known. Often the NGOs who worked to create it and the various government and international law experts are the only ones to receive any information.
We need, however, to make the general public aware of the preparations that have been made throughout the world in order to create an international criminal court which would be empowered to judge all those who have committed crimes of such enormity, these horrible crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
War is never a clean business, but the countries have come to mutual agreement on a certain number of rules relating to civilians and prisoners of war. As we know, and as we have seen recently, and continue to see, there are certain groups, certain troops that have turned their backs on this international convention. The crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity are defined in the bill. These are definitions which will apply equally in future to Canadian statutes and to the implementation of the provisions of the Rome Statute.
We would have liked to have seen the Rome Statute and its amendments given as an appendix to the bill, but what we would have liked still more would have been to have the bill provide broader jurisdiction for Canadian courts acting in this area.
What is meant by broader jurisdiction? I am not a lawyer, and sometimes glad of it, since I then have to translate these things into words, which I hope will be understandable to everyone, what my hon. colleagues say most precisely, but not always in a way that is understandable to the general public.
What broader jurisdiction means is that the Canadian courts could judge people who have been charged of such crimes, not solely those whose victims are Canadians or who, as perpetrators, are Canadians, but also anyone who has committed such crimes.
The reaction to this will be “But that is extremely broad. Can it be done?” The answer is yes. I will quote the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium. It should be known that Belgium enacted legislation giving its courts broader powers. In June 1998, addressing a gathering of the representatives of the countries that formed the project of an international tribunal, International Criminal Court, Minister Derijke made the following announcement. He said “In compliance with the principle of universal jurisdiction, my country passed legislation enabling its courts and tribunals to prosecute in 1993 suspected criminals”.
He did not say Belgian criminals or persons against whom Belgians may have committed crimes. He referred instead to persons suspected of having committed war crimes, regardless of where the crimes were committed or the citizenship of the perpetrators. He is talking about an expanded universal jurisdiction.
I know that Canada acted as a catalyst during the drafting of the Rome Statute. I know also that departmental officials, and external affairs officials in particular, worked hard on it and I salute them. At the same time I serve notice that the Bloc will keep on working to expand jurisdiction.
But there is more at issue, namely the issue of immunity. But even with expanded powers or jurisdictions, if at the same time, we in Canada were to grant immunity to former general Pinochet, for instance, then, we would have failed.
This is the reason why we introduced these amendments. It is not to unduly prolong the proceedings of the House. We thought this voice should be heard in the House of Commons during this debate. I have heard colleagues from at least one other party who were receptive to our comments.
It will not be easy to establish the International Criminal Court. Nine countries have already ratified the treaty. Canada will soon follow, but 60 signatories are required. Once the treaty has been ratified by 60 countries, the court will have jurisdiction over the signatory countries, but it will have to go through the security council counsel to have jurisdiction over other countries or criminals who take refuge or are living in other countries, hence the importance for countries, as the Belgium minister said, to give themselves the broadest jurisdiction possible.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.2 lost.
(Motion No. 2 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 5 lost.
(Motion No. 5 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question in on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 6 lost.
(Motion No. 6 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 8 lost.
(Motion No. 8 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 9 lost.
(Motion No. 9 negatived)
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): 
moved that the bill be concurred in.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the yeas have it.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-27, an act respecting the national parks of Canada, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There are 15 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-27.
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:
Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1 to 5, 10 and 13.
Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 6, 7, 11, 12 and 15.
Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 8 and 9.
Group No. 4, Motion No. 14.
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.
I will now submit Motions Nos. 1 to 5 and 10 and 13 to the House.
Inky Mark: moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-27, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 3 with the following: b ) the government of the province and the local government body in which”
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-27, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 3 with the following:
“province and the local government body in which the lands to be included in”
Rick Laliberte: moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-27, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 5 the following:
“(3) For the purposes of maintaining or restoring ecological integrity, the Minister shall, where applicable, a ) work cooperatively with federal and provincial ministers and agencies, local and aboriginal governments and organizations, bodies established under land claims agreements, representatives of park communities, private organizations, individuals and landowners in or adjacent to a park; and b ) participate in the development and implementation of processes and programs that may reasonably be expected to affect ecological integrity, including research, education, land use planning and environmental assessments.”
Inky Mark: moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-27, in Clause 10, be amended by adding before line 1 on page 6 the following:
“(2.1) An agreement entered into pursuant to paragraph (2)( b ) must take into account any traditional supply of water from the park.”
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-27, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 6 the following:
“(1.1) For greater certainty, the Minister shall provide opportunities for public participation in respect of a ) the determination of an increase in fees, rates, rents and other charges for the use of park resources and facilities, and b ) the control of access to parks by air.”
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-27, in Clause 33, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 22 the following:
“(1.1) A person who is a member of or who has a proprietary interest in the lands included in the park community is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be consulted and make representations in respect of the development and approval of the community plan for the park community.”
Rick Laliberte: moved:
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-27, in Clause 40, be amended a ) by replacing line 41 on page 26 with the following:
“40. (1) The application of this Act to a park” b ) by adding after line 44 on page 26 the following:
“(2) The application of this Act to a park reserve is subject to traditional aboriginal ecological knowledge and recognition of the integral role that such knowledge plays in the traditional renewable resource harvesting activities of aboriginal persons.”
Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to debate Bill C-27, an act respecting the national parks act of Canada at report stage.
The Canadian Alliance have made a number of amendments to help improve the legislation in the following areas: First, to strengthen democratic processes as well making it more inclusive; second, to help the parks administration become more accountable for its decision making; third, to recognize the traditional historic rights to access water from a park; and fourth, to make sure that park wardens have all the resources needed to do their jobs.
Let me being by saying that our amendments to clauses 5 and 6 will make the consultation process much more inclusive by including local government bodies in the text. We at the federal level always talk about municipal governments and how important they are but rarely do we include them in our legislation. It is irresponsible for the federal state to not recognize local government bodies throughout the act.
I still remember the present Prime Minister, in June 1996 at a FCM Calgary convention, telling the folks how important the municipalities were in Canada. Well, Mr. Prime Minister, the municipalities are all still waiting to be acknowledged. Perhaps accepting this amendment would be a good start.
The Canadian Alliance amendment to clause 10 by adding the words “traditional supply water from the park” will recognize the historic rights which existed prior to the formation of the park. This amendment will break the gridlock between Parks Canada and Dauphin, my home town. Dauphin has drawn water from the Riding Mountain National Park since the early 1900s, predating the existence of the park. Today the water source of the town is the same. Over the last decade, under my watch as the former mayor, an agreement could not be ironed out. Recognizing the traditional rights of the town will be a big help in finalizing an agreement with the park.
Having the ability to draw water from a park does not mean it is potable. In 1995 Dauphin was inflicted with a water emergency much like Walkerton, the only difference was that the infected did not die. They became very sick from drinking the park water. We found out that the water was contaminated with a micro-organism called giardia. The source of this giardia were the beavers in the park. A boil order lasted for almost two years until a new water treatment plant was constructed. The giardia is still in the water from the park.
Our amendment to clause 12 states that for greater certainty, whenever fees, rents, rates and other charges for the use of park resources and facilities are increased, the minister shall provide opportunity for public participation. In others words, the people must have a say whenever an increase is levied. The public must have input to decisions that are made which affect their pocketbook. If they do not have input, it is taxation without representation.
The Canadian Alliance amendment to clause 18 ensures that park wardens will have access to all resources that are required, including the possession of a firearm for the enforcement of this act and the regulations in all parts of the Canada, and for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace in parks.
Ten out of eleven provincial natural resources organizations equip their officers with firearms. I ask members to put themselves in their shoes before opposing this amendment. These officers have families and love ones like you and me, Mr. Speaker.
Our next amendment to clause 33 mandates that as a person who is a member of or who has a proprietary interest in the lands included in the park community is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be consulted and make representation in respect of the development and approval of the community plan for the park community. In other words, if the park user has an interest in the park, then they need to have access to decision making. This in essence calls for democratizing the decision making process.
The Canadian Alliance's last amendment deals with the whole issue of air safety. This issue has been debated for too long. Small aircraft flying through the Rocky Mountains need alternate landing strips in case of emergency. This is the reason that all airstrips in national parks should be in operational condition. COPA has been lobbying for this change for too many years. This amendment was made for the purpose of public safety. The air facilities in national parks should be open at all times. The saving of one life is worth supporting this amendment. As a pilot who has been flying for over 30 years, this amendment is about saving lives, and I ask my colleagues for their support.
As Canadians we all love our national parks. We all use national parks in different ways. Some of us like to use the beaches and some the campgrounds, some like to see the town sites and some the wilderness areas, and some like to take part in the nature programs. Parks and people go hand in hand. Can anyone imagine a park without giving people access?
Having travelled and consulted with most of the western park communities, what I found disturbing was the lack of trust in Parks Canada by both seasonal and full time residents of national parks. People want to be treated with openness, honesty and respect. I do not think this will happen unless this legislation mandates compulsory consultation and accountability. The problem at this time is that the buck does not stop anywhere. I believe checks and balances are needed to ensure that the buck does stop somewhere.
In closing, I say that our amendments were made with the objective to improve this bill. I ask all members for their support to these amendment.
Pierre De Savoye: Mr. Speaker, during second reading of Bill C-27 on national parks, the Bloc Quebecois indicated that it was in agreement in principle, but that it intended to raise some important concerns. First, there was the issue of maintaining and restoring the ecological integrity of parks, and the question of the time limits for the examination of ministerial orders with respect to amendments to certain schedules of the proposed legislation, which we feel are too short.
There was also the issue of respect for the rights of communities living within or near parks and, finally, the designation of historic sites, without consulting provinces or municipalities.
Following representations made to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage by the various interested parties, the Bloc Quebecois moved twenty or so amendments. The committee agreed to include a definition of ecological integrity in the bill.
We would also have liked clause 4 to deal more directly with this issue of ecological integrity, but we are happy that clause 8 stipulates that the minister's first priority shall be matters of ecological integrity.
The committee extended the time limit for examining ministerial orders to amend certain schedules to the legislation from 20 to 30 days. This is no guarantee that the committees responsible for these matters will be convened, but it reduces the risk considerably and we are satisfied.
The issue of respect for the rights of communities living within or near parks has not, in our view, been entirely resolved. However, clause 12 has been considerably improved so as to require the minister to encourage the public to participate in the development of policies and regulations that might concern it.
In addition, I must point out that, thanks to the intervention of the member for Manicouagan, the representations from inhabitants of the Mingan Archipelago were well received. Thus, in accordance with the wishes expressed by its inhabitants, the Mingan Archipelago has been added to the list of parks in clause 17 of the bill in respect of which the minister may make regulations regarding the exercise of traditional renewable resource harvesting activities. Besides, the limits of the park in the Mingan Archipelago will be, for each island, at the high water mark, as the representatives of the area wanted it to be.
On another topic, clause 42 of the bill provides that the governor in council may set any land as a national historic site to commemorate a historic event or preserve a historic landmark.
At first sight, these provisions appear desirable and harmless, but a closer examination shows that the minister could intrude, without provinces and even interested municipalities being aware, on sites and historic sites and deal with them and develop them the way he wants without necessarily abiding by town planning, zoning or any other municipal bylaws or provincial regulations.
There is a risk that a quiet neighbourhood might be transformed over night. A historic town centre could become a federal property, one building at the time, and the whole of it would become free from any obligation relating to provincial regulations or municipal bylaws. This is unacceptable in my opinion.
The Bloc Quebecois moved in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage an amendment proposing that such acquisitions should at least be approved by the provinces or province involved. The amendment was rejected by the Liberal majority.
This is why, and we will come to that later, I move that this clause be withdrawn, as it creates this type of risk for our provinces, municipalities and populations. If the House does not withdraw this section, I urge all provincial legislatures to legislate in order to subject to the approval of a provincial minister all real property transactions that would result in the transfer of a site to the federal government for the purpose of making it an historical site.
In this way the transaction could be made, but the provincial government and the municipalities would know about it and would be able to take steps to ensure that those transactions are respectful of the people and the authorities concerned.
To conclude, the Bloc will support the bill as amended at report stage. We will, however, be carefully monitoring how Parks Canada, whose priority must be the preservation and restoration of the environmental integrity, is carrying out its mission .
Rick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand and speak on the amendments to Bill C-27, an act respecting the national parks of Canada.
During this portion of our parliamentary role at second reading, I would like to state our appreciation for the outstanding levels of co-operation during the committee hearings and the support from Canada Parks personnel and their input in making our jobs as parliamentarians possible throughout the legislative process.
I believe that parliamentarians and the national parks should be above politics, and that the thrust of this for future generations will be toward a better future for our national parks and our national treasures.
I call on members on both sides of the House to work together toward a strong and powerful act that can create a positive future for the integrity of national parks and the viability for future generations to look forward to preserving our national heritage.
We will be supporting the bill and seeking the amendments that we have put forward to this point. Our first group of amendments is issues of clarity. Our second group of amendments is issues of concurrence. I would call on members to support those amendments as well.
Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise in the House to participate in the debate on Bill C-27, an act representing national parks. Before I begin to address the motions I should like to take a moment to express some of the frustration and disappointment I have felt with the government in the way it has tried to push this piece of legislation through the House before the end of the session.
For instance, a couple of weeks ago we were notified that we would be debating Bill C-27 at second reading the following Wednesday. Late on Thursday afternoon we got a call that we would be debating Bill C-27 the next day. I was fortunate that I was present and could participate in the debate, but some of my colleagues were not able to do so. That is the type of thing that takes away from the good will in the heritage committee and from the ability to properly participate in the process.
We saw some of this going on in committee when we had to sit extended hours for two or three days just so that we could listen to all the witnesses that had to come before us. I am not bothered by the fact that we had to work extended hours but I felt we had to rush and could not properly do all that had to be done. It meant that we had not only to listen to testimony but also had to study and read transcripts. The period of time to do that was too compressed and took away from our ability as parliamentarians to do our work in the proper way.
I congratulate the member for Dauphin—Swan River for submitting his thoughtful amendments. I only regret, however, that he chose to withdraw the same amendments from the heritage committee during clause by clause consideration where we would have had the opportunity to debate them to see exactly where he was going with this piece of legislation and his amendments.
I thought some of the amendments that the member made were quite reasonable. When he refused to put them forward at the heritage committee I began questioning whether the member had changed his mind and now agreed with the government's position on the particular clauses.
Enough about that. Let me touch a little on the motions before us, in particular Motions Nos. 1 and 2 introduced by the member for Dauphin—Swan River. These motions would have the federal government seek agreement with the provinces and the local governing body when creating or enlarging a park.
Like the member for Dauphin—Swan River, I also was concerned with ensuring that people living within the park communities had a chance to take part in the discussions and have input, but the problem arises with the ability to define local government and to describe exactly what it means.
Banff has its own government. We know that the federal government would not like to see that. We recognize that Jasper really did not want that type of thing but wanted some input into the process. The difficulty lies in defining exactly what local government is.
Motion No. 3 was introduced by my hon. colleague from Churchill River. This motion further highlights the extent to which negotiations must be undertaken with all stakeholders.
We introduced an amendment during clause by clause consideration by the heritage committee that would specifically include commercial interest as part of the negotiations. The government changed the clause such that we could support what it did that would make the process broader to include commercial interests as well. This amendment would serve to strengthen the consultation process.
Motion No. 4 is an amendment again introduced by my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River. It would ensure that the federal government could not cut off the traditional supply of water to adjacent residents. With the focus on ecological integrity, maintenance and restoration, this could possibly come into play. It is not a bad idea. It is there to ensure that the supply of fresh water remains constant.
Motion No. 5 was also introduced by my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River. I like this amendment because it gives local residents a greater say in determining the increase in fees, rates, rents and other charges for those who use park resources and facilities. Since this affects them directly they should have a say in it.
It might also help prevent the astronomical increase in property taxes that the people of Jasper are now being threatened with. Perhaps through public input we could determine an appropriate cost for entering our national parks areas that will be affordable to the average Canadian. We want all Canadians to be able to enjoy our national parts. That is what national parks are all about.
Motion No. 5 concerns the control of access to parks by air, which again was introduced by my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River. I know he is an avid pilot who has been flying for years. This issue had been dealt with in the past by the removal of an airport at Banff. It is my belief the landing strip should be maintained for emergency purposes just in case it is needed. It should be maintained for those purposes.
Motion No. 10 was introduced by the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River. We would like to encourage participation by all stakeholders in any decision making process. We want operators of our ski hills to have an equal say in the future of their industry. As any homeowner or business owner, they have a role to play in the creation of a community plan.
Motion No. 13 was introduced by the hon. member for Churchill River. I am not certain it reinforces the rights of aboriginal people to carry on their traditional renewable resource harvesting activities. The language of the government better addresses this concern. However we do not dispute the aboriginal peoples right to carry on their traditional harvesting in park reserves.
In conclusion, I thank the House for allowing me this time to speak to these motions and to the reworking and preparation of Bill C-27.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I will not be very long.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues from all parties who are members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for the excellent work they have done.
I believe that we had a good discussion on Bill C-27. We heard many witnesses and, on the whole—I suppose that everyone is not satisfied in terms of the measures they wanted—the committee met the concerns expressed during the hearings.
For example, for the aboriginals, we included a notwithstanding clause and made other amendments in reply to certain concerns that were expressed. We did the same thing for ecological integrity. Each opposition party wanted a definition of this concept. The government suggested one, which was amended and which obtained the unanimous assent of committee. The same thing happened in terms of the concerns expressed by the communities living in the parks.
We tried, in clauses 10 and 12, to partly follow their recommendations, by ensuring that they will be consulted and that the minister can conclude agreements with a variety of groups, including business interests, among others.
I believe we really met the concerns of those who made that presentation. For the benefit of my colleague from Portneuf, I must make a small correction concerning the Mingan Archipelago.
This is not a big deal, but I want to mention that the reason the government fully endorsed and followed through with the proposals of this community is mainly the quality of the delegation we received and of its presentation. The members of the delegation were very warm in the way they convinced us of the legitimacy of their proposals. I believe they convinced everybody.
True enough, their MP made representations, but the quality of this group had a lot to do with the government's decision. I wanted to make sure the people from Mingan knew that it is in great part due to their work that they will be satisfied if the bill is passed. I do not want to guess what the House will decide. I wanted to make sure they knew it.
Finally, I want to mention that in the first group we will support Amendment No. 4, but none of the others. Again, overall, the concerns raised by the opposition parties and by the groups that appeared before the committee were listened to. We amended the bill to reflect them in a positive way.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 1 lost on division.
(Motion No. 1 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion is lost on division.
(Motion No. 2 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 3 lost on division.
(Motion No. 3 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 4 carried.
(Motion No. 4 agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 5 lost on division.
(Motion No. 5 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 10 lost on division.
(Motion No. 10 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 13 lost on division.
(Motion No. 13 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will now proceed to the motions in Group No. 2.
Rick Laliberte: moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-27, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 7 the following:
“(5) Where a management plan that exists at the time this Act comes into force sets out an area of a park as a wilderness area, the Minister shall recommend to the Governor in Council that the area be declared a wilderness area within two years of the coming into force of this Act.”
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-27, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 47 on page 10 with the following:
“zones governing uses of land and buildings consistent with the principle of no net negative environmental impact;”
Inky Mark: moved:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-27 be amended by adding after line 42 on page 24 the following new clause:
“36.1 (1) No lease or licence of occupation may be granted for the purpose of air facilities on public lands in a park except within the aerodromes that are in existence at the time this Act comes into force and are located within a park, including Banff National Park of Canada and Jasper National Park of Canada.
(2) For the purposes of public safety, the air facilities within the existing aerodromes referred to in subsection (1) shall continue in operation.”
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-27 be amended by adding after line 42 on page 24 the following:
“(3) For the purposes of this section, the word “aerodrome” has the same meaning as in the Aeronautics Act.”
Rick Laliberte: moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-27 be amended by adding after line 23 on page 31 the following new clause:
“58.1 Section 2 of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
“ecological integrity” “intégrité écologique” “ecological integrity” means, with respect to a park, a condition that is determined to be characteristic of its natural region and likely to persist, including abiotic components and the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change and supporting processes.”
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Debate. Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on Motion No. 6.
Pierre De Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Did you say on debate?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Yes, I asked if an hon. member wished to speak. I did not see five members rise. I am sorry, I did not see the hon. member.
May we have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to debate to hear the hon. member for Portneuf?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Pierre De Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I will only take a few seconds to say that I did not in any way intend to minimize the excellent representations made by the people from the Mingan Archipelago. I simply wanted to point out that their MP chartered a plane to allow them to appear before the committee.
I think that is most praiseworthy on the part of the member, and that it needed to be pointed out in the House, without minimizing the excellent representations made by these witnesses.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): For the people in the gallery and the people watching, much of what is being done here at this moment is being done on a pro forma basis through negotiation with all parties. Members of the House and people who are familiar with the bill understand what is transpiring. Much of what we are doing now is a matter of legal formality and that is why it is going through so quickly.
I want to assure people in the gallery and people watching at home that this is not being done in a cavalier fashion.
Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 6 lost on division.
(Motion No. 6 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 7 lost on division.
(Motion No. 7 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 11 lost. I therefore declare Motion No. 12 lost on division.
(Motion No. 11 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is on Motion No. 15. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 15 lost.
(Motion No. 15 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will now put to the House the motions in Group No. 3.
Inky Mark: moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-27, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 14 with the following:
“18. (1) The Minister may designate persons”
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-27, in Clause 18, be amended by adding after line 40 on page 14 the following:
“(2) For greater certainty, park wardens are entitled to ( a ) the protection provided by the law to peace officers within the meaning of the Criminal Code; and ( b ) access to all of the resources that are required, including the possession of a firearm, for the enforcement of this Act and the regulations in any part of Canada and for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace in parks.”
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 8 lost. I therefore declare Motion No. 9 lost.
(Motion No. 8 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will now put the motions in Group No. 4 to the House.
Pierre De Savoye: moved:
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-27 be amended by deleting Clause 42.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No. 14 lost.
(Motion No. 14 negatived)
Lucienne Robillard: 
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with a further amendment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the yeas have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion carried on division.
(Motion agreed to)
Business Of The HouseMr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between the parties and there is agreement for the following. I move, pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), to further defer the recorded divisions scheduled for Monday, June 12, 2000 on Motion No. 237 and Bill C-214 until the end of Government Orders on Tuesday, June 13, 2000.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as being 1.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent to see the clock as 1.30 p.m.?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will now proceed to Private Members' Business.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion.
Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 259 which states that the government should give consideration to exempting up to $30,000 of income from income tax as a gesture of support for those artists, writers and performers who work in Canada's cultural industry. The motion has been brought forward by the member for Kamloops—Thompson and Highland Valleys.
On the surface it seems to be a proposal which is very much in harmony with the government's stand on the arts. The government recognizes the importance of providing continued support to individuals engaged in the arts. However, this is not the way to do it.
The government is committed to ensuring that Canadians have Canadian choices and that they are connected to other Canadians and to the very diverse Canadian culture. This means focusing on the creation of Canadian content and supporting creators, artists and innovators. It means enhancing the capacity of cultural organizations, cultural industries and cultural institutions to build and retain audiences and to seize both the opportunities and the challenges created by the globalization and new technologies which are unfolding. It means finding ways to build connections among Canadians across communities, to connect Canadians to the world, and to engage young Canadians in all that we do.
Our government's commitment also means taking into account the uniqueness and the distinct character of Quebec culture and the needs and circumstances of French language communities in other parts of Canada as well.
Taken at a glance, the proposed tax exemption for artists, writers and performers could be seen to be very consistent with these stated objectives. However on closer inspection, it becomes less clear that such a tax exemption is warranted.
Since 1997 I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. It is interesting that this motion has come forward for consideration by the government, yet creators have come to the finance committee and asked us to look at initiatives such as income averaging or indeed some of the aspects of the Irish model.
Income earned by artists, writers, composers and sculptors from the sale of their work is exempt from tax in Ireland only under certain circumstances. In Ireland, section 195 of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997, empowers revenue to determine that artistic works which are original and creative are recognized as having cultural or artistic merit and may have an exemption from tax within the year in which the claim is made.
It is done through the minister of finance. It is determined in consultation with a board or body of persons that are knowledgeable in this area of art. It looks at the sale of artistic endeavours such as a book or other writing, a play, a musical composition, a painting or other like picture, and a sculpture. It also has a proviso that claimants for artists exemption must be resident or ordinarily reside and be domiciled in Ireland.
These are initiatives the government has been encouraged to look at and I believe there is merit in doing so. However the motion before us is simply a tax exemption of up to $30,000 for artists who reside in Canada. I would emphasize that the tax system already has features, several unique measures as a matter of fact, that support our artistic and cultural sectors.
Certified Canadian film productions produced by qualified corporations have a special refundable tax credit which covers up to 12% of the cost of the eligible production. It replaces a previous system of capital cost allowance deductions for certain investors that was in place until 1995 and it maximises a benefit for the eligible productions.
As well, Canadian art objects purchased by businesses for display purposes are eligible for a generous depreciation allowance, notwithstanding the fact that such art objects may retain their value or indeed appreciate in value over time. This provision enhances the exposure given to Canadian art.
The designation of the national arts service organization provides national not for profit art groups with the same tax treatment as charities. This has done much to enhance that sector. Artists may deduct the cost of creating a work of art in the year incurred even though the work may not be sold until a later date. This provision recognizes the difficulty that many artists face when attributing costs to a particular work and carrying inventory over long periods of time.
Employed artists and musicians may deduct certain expenses against income from that employment notwithstanding that most employment expenses are non-deductible. Specifically, employed artists may deduct expenses related to their artistic endeavours up to an annual limit.
Employed musicians are able to claim the cost of maintenance, rental, insurance and capital cost allowance on musical instruments. The special deductions recognize that these expenses are required in order to carry on employment in these fields.
Artists may also elect to value charitable gifts from their inventory at any amount up to their fair market value. This provision removes an obstacle for artists donating their works to charities, museums and other public institutions.
Certain objects certified to be of cultural importance to Canada are exempt from capital gains tax if donated to a designated museum or art gallery. This provision helps to ensure that artistic works of cultural significance are retained in Canada.
These are important provisions. They demonstrate that the government has taken steps to ensure that the tax system does not form a barrier to engaging in artistic endeavours. However the proposal before us today does not seek to address a specified problem faced by artists. Rather, the proposal is for a substantial tax exemption for all individuals recognized as artists. Such a tax exemption would raise significant concerns in the context of the income tax policy and administration.
From the perspective of equity I am sure we would all agree that the tax system should as much as possible treat individuals in similar circumstances in a similar manner. This means that individuals with comparable incomes and needs should pay comparable amounts of tax. However under the proposed exemption an eligible artist would pay substantially less tax than another individual in a comparable position who is not an artist. This would seem to me to be highly unfair.
I am certain that other taxpayers would also see this issue in the same light. It would be very difficult to explain to a hard working taxpayer why she should be faced with a tax liability while another individual at the same income did not pay any tax whatsoever simply because she was an artist. For this reason alone I find the proposal before us today to be flawed.
Moreover, the proposal is overly vague in several crucial aspects. First, the proposed exemption would require that some definition of eligible artists be developed. However the motion makes no reference to this definition.
It is true that some definitions already exist. For example, in the Status of the Artist Act and in the guidelines used by the Canada Council for the Arts there are definitions, but these definitions were not created with the income tax system in mind and would likely have to be revised.
It is difficult to imagine that any definition could be developed that would satisfactorily address all needs of interested parties. Without a doubt any definition that excluded a given group or artistic activity would be subject to dispute and would be very difficult both to administer and to control.
The motion before us does not specify whether the proposed exemption is to apply to the income from the artists' endeavours only or to all income earned by eligible individuals no matter how they are defined.
Limiting the exemption to artistic income would seem to be too restrictive, especially by part time artists and performers. However extending the exemption to all sources of income seems to be overly generous and would encapture people that perhaps do art as a hobby or simply as a sideline. These are just a few of the things that make the motion before us so problematic.
In conclusion, while encouraging our arts and cultural industries has been and will continue to be an important priority for Canadians, I do not believe the proposed tax exemption would be an appropriate policy tool and I do not support it.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to enter the debate and to speak in favour of Motion No. 259 as put forward by the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. I know the hon. member spent a great deal of time speaking to arts and cultural groups across the country. In fact it was at their request that the member put the idea forward for debate in the House of Commons.
Motion No. 259 has the endorsation of 30 arts and cultural groups across the country such as the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the Writer's Union of Canada, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, and the Canada Council for the Arts, just to name a few of the many groups that have come forward asking parliament to recognize in a meaningful way through our tax system the contribution arts and cultural communities make not only to the Canadian cultural fabric but to the Canadian economy.
Motion No. 259 seeks to amend the tax system to introduce tax fairness for our working creators. It would encourage an income tax reduction that would be similar to that already offered in the province of Quebec for working artists. Once again the province of Quebec seems to be leading the way in this type of issue. At least it has recognized the value of the cultural industry in that province and has made meaningful changes to that effect.
Motion No. 259 would benefit those artists and creators who earn very little income. We are only aware of the artists who have reached celebrity status. Granted, there are some musicians and artists who become famous and earn a good deal of money, but the incomes of most creators are over 50% below the national average.
Just by way of an example, the Writer's Union of Canada states that the average annual income of writers is less than $12,000 a year. According to Statistics Canada visual artists earned on average $12,633 in 1995. The Crafts Association of British Columbia states that 50% of its members reported earnings of less than $5,000 per year from their craft and 31% reported earnings of between $5,000 and $20,000 a year. That is the reality of most people working in the arts and cultural communities. Whether one is a writer, a visual artist, a filmmaker, a musician or a dancer, that is the reality.
If we want people to be in those positions and if we value the cultural institutions by which Canada identifies itself and in which Canada takes great pride, we need to support those individuals in a meaningful way.
Motion No. 259 recommends that up to $30,000 of income be exempt. This would change the basic personal exemption to up to $30,000 of income earned from the activity for which the person is registered, not of their total overall earnings. If they are earning supplementary income from another type of work obviously they would be subject to the same tax as everyone else. This is the actual copyrighted work that they are producing as an aspect of the art in which they are involved. I think it is very realistic. Other countries have undertaken it and we have some evidence to draw from as to what it would actually cost or what the pick-up would be were this offered to the artistic community.
One of the most famous examples is Ireland. Ireland, as everyone knows, is well known for its arts, culture, music, great writers and great poets. People in its cultural sector are valued, treasured, appreciated and accurately reflected in the income tax system. I have some examples of how the Irish system works, but it would be safe to say that we could look to this model.
The motion put forward by the member from Kamloops is vague for a purpose. The member genuinely wanted to stimulate this debate. He did not want to say what we should be doing or how it must be done. He wanted us to speak in the House openly and freely about whether or not we value our creators in the cultural sector.
People working in the arts and cultural sectors make up 8% of our total labour force. It is actually larger than forestry, mining and agriculture combined. I do not believe we recognize them and the contribution they make not just to our quality of life, which is important, but to our economy.
It would be a very small cost factor. I believe there is no ceiling in Ireland on its tax break for income earned from artistic endeavours, as we are recommending. Even there where they have many people involved in the arts and cultural sector and with no ceiling it only costs about $12 million Canadian per year. Frankly that is not a great deal of money when we consider the contribution it makes to the economy of Ireland. Perhaps we could view the impact of the program being recommended by the member from Kamloops in a comparable light. That would be the approximate price tag we would be contemplating.
We believe that our arts and cultural community has been underrecognized. We expect artists to be there when we want to be entertained. We assume they will always be there because for the love of their craft they are willing to starve and live in some garret, the stereotype of the starving artist. That is not necessary. If we value the product we should be demonstrating that realistically with a tax exemption.
Other industries receive exemptions because we value them. There are capital gains exemptions for businesses and so on. People in other occupations enjoy that type of tax credit. It is a recognition of the way we value them in our community, but we do not do the same with artists, musicians, dancers and so on.
Some artists face real costs to carry on their craft. Musicians these days, whether violinists or pianists, may have $100,000 invested in their instruments. They are paid abysmally because I do not think there is a symphony orchestra that is adequately funded. After studying all their lives and investing an absolute fortune in a quality instrument they are virtually paid peanuts.
The motion put forward by the member from Kamloops in some way takes some steps toward recognizing the hardship faced by those who create in our arts and cultural sector. We value them. The NDP caucus is quite interested in this motion. I was very pleased to be able to speak to it today. We are disappointed that the first member who spoke from the Liberal side dismissed the idea without a great deal of thought or getting into it in any detail.
The only way we could investigate this fully is to deal with it at the finance committee. If the motion were allowed to pass at second reading we could do that. I point out that parliament has dealt with the issue in the past. In 1982 we all remember the Applebaum-Hébert commission on Canadian cultural life. It pointed out that the largest subsidy to the cultural life in Canada came not from governments, corporations or other patrons, but from the artists themselves through their unpaid and underpaid labour. As early as 1982 we were seized of this issue.
In 1999 the heritage committee's report stated:
From the Committee's standpoint, investing in the arts is no less important than investing in the social sciences humanities, the purer sciences or medicines. The Committee is also aware of the long term commitment made to the researchers and scholars by other federal government agencies and looks for a similar level of commitment to Canadian artists.
As recently as 1999 the heritage committee recommended this in its report, so I was very surprised and disappointed when the first speaker on this motion today simply said that it was not meant to be. Maybe she has not researched the recent comments of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
I have pointed out how much I admire the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys for bringing the motion forward. It is an important debate. Other countries do it. The province of Quebec does it. I believe that the Government of Canada should show support for those involved in the arts and cultural industries.
Official ReportFrancine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the speech I made last night around 5.30 p.m. concerning the opposition motion is reported in today's Hansard .
I said “Economic Development Bank” but meant “Federal Development Bank”. I would like to have this correction made to Hansard if possible. The blues were not in when we left yesterday, at 7 p.m., and this morning, Hansard had already been printed. For posterity I would like this change to be made.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is certainly now on the record, although I am not sure just what we can do. The member has it now on the record so that in any event her position is settled.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to represent the wonderful people of the riding of Elk Island in the debate on a motion put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.
The motion is very interesting. The hon. member is proposing that some people in the country who are not making enough money to make a decent living should have a tax break. I have to say that I very much agree with that part of the motion.
The hon. member is talking about people in the arts and entertainment industry. People are working full time trying to make a living and sometimes their income level is really challenged. It is very tough for them to make ends meet, yet the Liberals are still quite content to reach into those people's pockets and take some of their meagre earnings and use them to build fountains in Shawinigan and other projects of their liking.
I find this really passing strange. It is an interesting comment on the Prime Minister and on Liberal thinking when we contemplate what the Prime Minister said in Europe just a few days ago. He said something about people who want to keep more of their own earnings being greedy. That was the word he used.
An artist who makes $13,000 or $15,000 a year has to pay several hundred dollars in income tax so that the Prime Minister can take the money to spend in his riding. He attributes the word greed to the artist who would like to keep some of his or her own earnings, but he somehow does not see that there is any element of greed in his own wanting to use that very same money for his nefarious purposes.
I also think of single moms. There are many single parents and most of them are single moms. Many of them make less than $20,000 yet the Liberal government with its so-called social conscience is quite content to lift from the pockets of those people who make less than $20,000 a year some $6 billion or $7 billion a year in income tax. How shameful.
An NDP member is saying that we need to be less greedy and let artists keep more of their earnings. I simply say it is time we replaced the Liberal government which cannot see past anything that moves without wanting to regulate it and tax it. In principle I agree with what the NDP member is proposing in the motion, which is is to reduce taxes, particularly for those people who have a very limited income.
I could hardly let this moment pass by without mentioning our solution 17. For all intents and purposes it would take almost two million taxpayers off the tax rolls completely, giving them a 100% reduction in taxes. When the Liberals knock our solution 17 plan, they are trying to get a message to Canadians to be suspicious of our plan, to not accept it and to not trust us to form the government. I really wonder about the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister who will not openly and honestly deal with the facts and let the people of Canada decide. Instead they paint a bunch of pictures of our plan which are quite different from what the plan actually is.
There is no doubt that low income Canadians, among them artists, need a substantial tax break. The member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys has suggested that the tax break should be 100% up to $30,000 of earnings. I have a bit of a problem with that. As much as I agree with the concept of reducing the taxes, I am not in favour of saying let us find which groups we should give this benefit to.
The Liberals like to line up different groups based on their race. They say that one race will have a better advantage over another one when it comes to hiring or benefits and other things with respect to the government. The NDP would probably look at people in terms of need, but it is only prepared to look at some individuals who have needs. In this case it is looking at people in the artistic community.
Let us not hesitate to say it does not matter whether the person is an artist, a mechanic, an unemployed nurse or a part time worker at a fast food place. If the person does not make enough money to adequately provide for his or her family, then there is still something fundamentally wrong with the government taking a certain portion of the earnings and saying that it wants it anyway.
The concept of increasing the basic exemption is very good. This is where solution 17 shines. For an individual, we would take that basic exemption right up to $10,000. Many students, artists and other people who have a small income would be totally exempt from paying federal income tax, which is as it should be. The remainder would pay the lowest rate. We are currently proposing 17% for that rate. That is why we have named it solution 17.
Artists of course have other things that affect them. Depending on the area where their work takes place, many of them incur expenses while they are producing their art. Whether one is a writer or a painter, it sometimes takes a year or two or three to earn an income. Producing the work takes that much time and it is only when the work is sold that there is income.
Perhaps we would be much wiser if we looked not only at artists, but at people whose income falls into the category of a large income over longer intervals of time and no income for a long time and then a spurt of larger income and then again a time of limited or no income.
Perhaps we should re-design our income tax system so there can be some long term averaging of both income and expenses. The annual exemption of our proposed $10,000 per year would in effect give the artist a $30,000 exemption over three years, the time that it takes to produce the work.
Obviously we need to deal with this issue not only for artists but for all Canadians. Although I agree in principle with what the hon. member is trying to do, I am going to have to vote against the motion. The simple reason is that I do not think it is right to single out one occupational group as a favoured group who can earn up to $30,000 without paying income tax, but everyone else regardless of how poor they are or what their obligations are to their children and families have to pay taxes on an amount of money after whatever the basic exemption is.
The basic exemption is around $8,000 under the Liberals. It would be $10,000 per adult under our plan. A family, a mom and a dad and two kids, under our plan would have a tax free income up to $26,000. That is very close to what the hon. member is proposing for artists. The difference is that our plan would apply to everyone in that income category. That would be a much more fair way of dealing with it.
I regret that my time is up. I would like to talk a bit more about some of the supports that are available to artists but I will have to leave that for other members.
Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, New Brunswick, it gives me great pleasure to speak in favour of Motion No. 259, a votable motion put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.
It is very important to recognize that civilized societies have always supported the arts and culture. It is a tradition that has been valued throughout history. We should seek to maintain and improve this with policies, not specifically tax policies, but policies that support and encourage culture and the development of the arts in Canada, which has had a long and diverse history.
As an Atlantic Canadian from New Brunswick, one of the most culturally diverse and productive regions in Canada, we value a tradition of excellence. There are economic opportunities for all Canadians in recognizing and harnessing the power of the arts and cultural community, whether it is the Lion King in Toronto, or musicians like the Rankin Family and Natasha St-Pierre in Atlantic Canada who started from very humble means and have done extremely well, or artists who have reached international acclaim, like Roch Voisine who was born in my riding in New Brunswick. These types of success stories are worthy of recognition. However, we must do more to help artists when they are starting off.
The motion is very sound from the perspective of the hon. member's desire to help. However, there are some difficulties in its implementation and I would like to point out a couple of them.
It is very nebulous in terms of describing who qualifies and how the term artist fits a specific individual and whether or not that can be defined and the definition defended effectively.
The hon. member also pointed out the financial roller coaster artists are on. An artist may go on for several years without payment and then receive a lump sum payment recognizing contributions made over a period of time. The best way to address that would be through income averaging. This would also address other people who are similarly predisposed through the nature of their business to receive lump sum payments in recognition of work completed over a period of several years. Income averaging would be the best way to address it.
The average income of an artist in Canada is currently estimated at about $13,000. The issue raised by the hon. member can be addressed in a more broadly based way by significantly raising the basic personal exemption for all Canadians. The Progressive Conservative Party's task force which reported in January recommended an increase to $12,000. This would help significantly. That being the case, we should move over a period of time to raise the basic personal exemption.
The hon. member also recognized that tax relief could play an important role in helping artists pursue their chosen field of culture and art and in keeping them in Canada. It indicates that he recognizes the importance of lowering taxes for all Canadians to ensure that Canadians, regardless of career or life pursuit, can choose to stay and prosper in Canada. Whether it is a dot com, e-commerce, biotech or traditional industry, Canadians could have a future in Canada.
The hon. member demonstrated clearly that he recognizes the important role that tax policy plays in encouraging and discouraging pursuit of particular activities. In that vein I think he would agree that we should continue to be vigilant in ensuring that the tax burdens of Canadians are not excessive when compared to those of other countries.
Whether Canadians wish to pursue careers in the arts or the traditional economy we want them to be free to do so in Canada. I am sure he would share with me the need to reduce taxes for all Canadians based on his basic premise that decreasing taxes could help to encourage people, in this case artists, to pursue and maintain a certain level of activity.
The issue of capital gains tax needs to be addressed as well. In Canada we currently tax at 50% of the regular inclusion rate for the donation of publicly traded or listed securities to charitable foundations or institutions. Whether it is a hospital, a university, an endowment fund or a cultural activity, we tax 50% of capital gains.
Inclusion rates are taxed in Canada for donation of publicly traded or listed securities. In the U.S. there is absolutely no capital gains taxes on contributions of listed securities. This has led over the years to a significant disadvantage for Canadian universities, Canadian hospitals and the Canadian arts community. It has created a disincentive for high net worth Canadians to contribute listed shares of publicly traded companies to the cultural sector, health foundations and universities.
At the time of the prebudget report the Progressive Conservative dissenting report recommended the elimination of capital gains tax on gifts of listed securities. That would go a long way toward encouraging high net worth individuals in Canada and Canadians of relatively modest means who may have done very well in equity investing in recent years to help foster a greater environment for cultural activity in Canada. That is one way this could be addressed.
I would also be interested in exploring the examples of other countries relative to special tax exemptions for those engaged in the arts. By and large there is only one party in the House of Commons which consistently opposes any support for the Canadian arts. I expect it would probably kick a member out of its caucus if it were discovered that he or she had gone to live theatre.
It is important that there be almost an all-party commitment to the arts and cultural community in the House of Commons. While I may disagree with the particular vehicle set forth by the hon. member to help create a better environment for cultural and artistic diversity in Canada, I assure him that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada remains committed to work with altruistically oriented parties in the House.
We must seek better ways to support and encourage the arts and all types of creative endeavours for Canadians, whether they be involved in graphic arts, the dot com universe, weaving, painting, dancing or playwriting.
One of the things that defines us as Canadians is our unique culture and vibrancy from coast to coast to coast, which we shall continue to have with the proper support and encouragement of all Canadians.
Rick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my support to Motion No. 259 of my hon. colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. I will state it clearly for the record:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to exempting up to $30,000 of income from income tax as a gesture of support for those artists, writers and performers who work in Canada's cultural industry.
My reason for speaking today is to show a gesture of support for our artists, writers and performers. Not enough can be said for the artistic and gifted people in Canada who are continually contributing to an industry that is growing in leaps and bounds with the new media, the Internet and the information age interconnection. There is a new aspect of visual, artistic, audio and video presentations, real time, and an international sharing of information.
If language is a barrier among our communities and our youth, the whole aspect of graphics, pictures, audio visual presentations and music provides an international language which breaks the boundaries. A flourishing industry starts with the planting of a seed in the form of the God-given talents of young people who find their calling, their true gifts and their strength. Maybe it is a gift they have been given in the artistic field.
Our society is on an income base. It is a state of dependency. In any city transactions involving milk, water, clothes, housing or electricity are dependent on money. To live in a city one needs money. Whether it be Paris, New York, Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton, Lethbridge or Hull, young people are trying to find their calling. This is an opportunity for Canada to give a gesture of support to artists. They may find they have to scrape their elbows and their knees to provide food and shelter for themselves, their immediate families, their communities or their extended families such as their elderly parents or grandparents. Artists are probably the most generous in terms of charities. Artists donate their works of art as a gesture of charity to local events such as silent auctions. The government should show a gesture of support by assisting them in finding their calling.
For example, an artist working in oils may find that those techniques are the best templates for the colours on a modem to be transferred internationally on a desk top computer in multi-media. Colours and hues can be controlled by technology as opposed to mixing oil paints on a palette.
Some may have to go for some upgrading in new styles or techniques. They may have to broaden their horizons by going to a big city or venturing into a new part of Canada. It would take considerable expense to make this happen. As a nation we could make a gesture of freedom to our artists. Basically it would allow them the freedom of expression and the freedom to try new ways.
I would like to cast a good light on our artists and their gifts. At a younger age when choosing my career path and realizing my aspirations for the gifts I was given I was told that an artist is a conceptualizer. For example, someone dreamt up the architectural concept of the parliament buildings. Somebody expressed it on paper or in words. That gesture was supported and it grew into the buildings on Parliament Hill. The architecture of these buildings are of artistic value. They also have a purpose.
Our artists may have artistic talents but they also have integrity and serve a purpose in terms of the nation and the new technologies. There has to be a purpose. It is not for mere entertainment or mere entrepreneurial skills that our artists work on their concepts.
I come from a region of Canada which is known for its beadwork, crafts, clothing such as moccasins and dream catchers, where people consider their talents to be a gift and have included purpose in their art such as dream catchers trapping the good dreams and screening out the bad ones in a child's room or the parents' room. The dream catcher is an artistic form but also has a spiritual purpose in making our lives better.
The government has an opportunity to make a gesture of support for our artisans, our playwrights, our singers and our poets. I also think of our recently lost colleague and brother, the late Mr. Maurice Richard.
Performers in television and movies are growing in numbers and attracting the motion picture industry here. Let us support them. They are seasonal jobs. Some people might find summer work in shooting locations throughout the country but may fall short trying to make ends meet.
The exemption of $30,000 worth of income could be our gesture to encourage artists, writers and performers to say they have a rightful place and that we count on them to conceptualize our future and make out lives better in the country we call home, Canada.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Motion No. 259 in the name of the member for Kamloops—Thompson and Highland Valleys is a votable item. We are in the second hour of debate. A request has been made by the member in question and has been respected by all the parties of the House to preserve the last hour of debate which of course would only occur I suspect some time in the fall.
I believe you would find unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as being 2.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): 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.
This House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11.00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.15 p.m.)