2001-10-26

Business of the HouseThe Speaker: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14), to inform the House that the motion to be considered on Monday, October 29, 2001, during the consideration of the business of supply is as follows:

That this House call upon the government to review its international aid policy with a view to substantially increasing the funds available for Canadian humanitarian aid, particularly in the context of the military interventions in Afghanistan, and to increasing the level of its aid for development to 0.7% of GDP, as recommended by the United Nations.

This motion, standing in the name of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, will be votable. Copies of the motion are available at the Table.
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-34, an act to establish the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): 
moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)
David Collenette: 
moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning on Bill C-34, an act to establish the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada.
This bill was debated at second reading earlier this month and this week the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations finished its examination.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations for handling the bill so expeditiously.
The committee met with representatives of the department this week, which enabled them to obtain answers to their questions.
In the transportation sector there has been a real modernizing of our federal transportation legislation in reforming the ways that we administer and enforce our legislation in the interests of the Canadian people.
We think that the establishment of the tribunal would contribute greatly to legislative reform in the transportation sector. The legislation does so in three key areas: First, it allows for the use of a broader spectrum of administrative types of enforcement actions in relation to minor regulatory violations.
Second, it provides for review of the use of administrative enforcement actions by an expert body completely separate from the department which we think is particularly useful.
Third, the legislation promotes consistent government treatment of persons engaged in federally regulated transportation activities in the rail, marine and aviation sectors.
I apologize for not taking part in the second reading debate on the bill but I believe my parliamentary secretary spoke. During the review by the committee, I was pleased to note that the representatives from all parties indicated support for the general principles behind the tribunal and its establishment.
It is always a pleasure to see that such non-partisan co-operation is possible.
I thank my colleagues in the opposition for their co-operation and their recognition that this multimodal tribunal is a good idea and a very sensible way of enforcing legislative provisions.
I would like to share with hon. members some of the key elements in the bill.
Bill C-34 has two key components: first, the establishment of the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada; and, second, the outlining of the tribunal's jurisdiction and decision making authority by amending six key pieces of transportation legislation: the Aeronautics Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and Bill C-14, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.
We have had a very heavy legislative load at transport in the last few years. In the coming months I hope to bring forward the Canada airports bill as well as amendments to the Aeronautics Act, which are in progress but will need to be advanced in view of the events of September 11, and the Canada Transportation Act later next year. It will be a busy year for those members of the House interested in transportation. That does not even take into account the issues that we are having to grapple with on the airline and air safety front.
The establishment of the new and improved tribunal involves the transformation of the existing Civil Aviation Tribunal into a multi-modal transportation tribunal. It would provide the rail, marine and aviation sectors with access to an independent body.
The bill deals with the machinery aspects of establishing this tribunal such as membership appointments, duties and qualifications, and the review and appeal hearing process. It also includes transitional housekeeping provisions to ensure that the work of the Civil Aviation Tribunal continues smoothly into the new body.
Members of all parties have indicated that the expertise of the members appointed to this tribunal will be crucial to the tribunal's credibility. Obviously there will be some considerable overlap.
The legislation makes relevant transportation expertise a mandatory criteria. This would involve separate rosters of part time rail, marine and civil aviation members. Within each roster there would be a wide variety of expertise: commercial, mechanical, legal and medical, to name a few. This means that a review hearing dealing with a rail matter would be heard by a member with rail expertise, a medical issue would be heard by a member with medical expertise, and so on.
This tribunal would not only have an impressive array of relevant transportation expertise but it would come at an impressively low cost. The roster of part time members would only be paid when they are hearing a case.
That brings me to another issue. The jurisdiction of the tribunal in terms of the types of administrative enforcement decisions it could review is set out in the amendments to the six transportation acts. The tribunal would be able to review six different types of administrative enforcement decisions found in varying degrees in the six pieces of transportation legislation including administrative monetary penalties, refusals to remove enforcement notations, railway orders, a variety of licensing decisions, notices of default in relation to assurances of compliance, and decisions surrounding screening officer designations.
The powers of the tribunal would depend on the nature of the administrative enforcement decision being reviewed. Where the enforcement action is substantially punitive in nature, the tribunal would be able to substitute its decision for that of the department. For example, a tribunal review of an administrative monetary penalty.
However where the enforcement action has more to do with competencies, qualifications to hold licences, public interest or other safety considerations, the tribunal would generally be authorized only to confirm the department's decision or refer the matter back for reconsideration.
It is not the intent of the legislation to dilute the fundamental safety and security responsibilities of the Minister of Transport under the various transportation acts. I wish to thank members of the House who provided their comments and support for the bill.
In closing, I am sure the transport appeal tribunal of Canada could provide an efficient and effective review. I am confident that it could benefit from the same levels of support as are currently available to the Civil Aviation Tribunal.
I hope members would agree that it is appropriate at this time to address a few words to the current chair, vice-chair and members of the Civil Aviation Tribunal. They will set the stage for this expanded tribunal with their effective management of the cases brought before them. I wish to express to each of them our gratitude for a job well done. I know their expertise will carry forward through the transition period.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-34, an act to establish the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada. It is a very technical bill that replaces the Civil Aviation Tribunal, which is part IV of the Aeronautics Act, and creates a transportation appeal tribunal with jurisdiction over air, rail and marine transportation.
Until now pilots who had their licences suspended, an airline that had its operating certificate revoked, an air courier company facing a fine, or an airline forced to obey certain restrictions as a result of a violation of safety related provisions of the Aeronautics Act, were able to appeal the conviction to the Civil Aviation Tribunal.
That tribunal got cases out of the courts and the commissioners were “persons who had knowledge and experience in aeronautics”, with the result that decisions might be more reflective of the real world than a procedure dominated by lawyers who had never been in a cockpit.
The Civil Aviation Tribunal had power to review administrative enforcement actions including the suspension and cancellation of licences, certificates and other documents of entitlement, and the imposition of monitory penalties taken under various federal transportation acts. The tribunal also heard appeals from determinations made on review.
Bill C-34 renames that tribunal and gives it jurisdiction over rail and maritime matters as well. The bill is only nine pages long and 10 of its 32 provisions deal with the transition from the Civil Aviation Tribunal to the new transportation appeal tribunal of Canada. It would continue to have the powers of the former tribunal, continue legal proceedings currently before that tribunal and would transfer staff to the new transportation appeal tribunal of Canada.
The majority of the remaining provisions of the bill are a renumbering and house cleaning of section 29 to section 37 of the Aeronautics Act which established the Civil Aviation Tribunal. To get the tribunal out of the Aeronautics Act and under its own act the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada would be created. All assets, cases, employees and responsibilities of the Civil Aviation Tribunal would be transferred to the new tribunal rather than simply renaming the Civil Aviation Tribunal.
The new provisions in Bill C-34 recognize that the new tribunal's jurisdiction extends beyond aviation. For example, subclause 3(1) while closely mirroring subsection 29(2) of the Aeronautics Act, which required tribunal members to be persons “who have knowledge and experience in aeronautics”, now requires persons to “have expertise in the transportation sectors in respect of which the federal government has jurisdiction”.
Nonetheless there are some genuinely new concepts in Bill C-34 that slightly improve upon the former Civil Aviation Tribunal in several ways.
First, subclause 6(3) would allow a former member of the tribunal to clean up unfinished business for eight weeks after his or her term expires. This is definitely more efficient than having to rehear a matter because the term of a member of the tribunal has expired.
Second, clause 12 would provide that reviews concerning medical matters such as someone not being medically fit to perform his or her duties must be heard by a doctor.
Third, subclause 15(5) would mandate a balance of probabilities as the standard of proof in all proceedings before the tribunal. This is already a convention and it is a good idea to have it enshrined in law.
Fourth, clause 19 would give the tribunal the ability to award costs. This is a 180 degree change from subsection 37(7) of the Aeronautics Act which precluded the awarding of costs. That subsection was drafted in 1985 or earlier. It is a good idea to give the tribunal the ability to award costs against people who bring frivolous or vexatious matters before it.
Subclause 19(4) would allow a tribunal judgment to be registered in the federal court, giving it the same force and effect as if it were a federal court judgment. This is a good idea in the sense that it puts teeth into tribunal decisions, especially when fines are imposed. The same provisions of administrative law such as judicial review would apply to this tribunal as well as to other tribunals.
The majority of the paperwork that accompanies Bill C-34 contains the consequential amendments made to the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Railway Safety Act in order to establish the jurisdiction and decision making authorities of the tribunal under those acts. The bill appears to be a good idea and after much deliberation the official opposition has decided to support it.
However we question the timing of the legislation and the government's priorities. I am glad the minister indicated today that he would be bringing forth legislation to deal with other matters, particularly the impact on the airline sector after the events of September 11.
The reality we have to face today is that consumer confidence is down and bookings for air travel are down. There are still many safety concerns about the possibility of weapons and other things getting through security. There is a call from the official opposition for air marshals, for stronger cockpit doors and for a government takeover of security measures within airports. We also have to consider the financial impact on the airline sector.
This is an international phenomenon. Airlines from around the world reported losses and laid off staff. Air Canada and Air Transat laid off staff. Air Canada asked for substantial support and other airlines are expected to ask for it as well. Canada 3000 is also in a tough situation. The U.S. congress approved $15 billion for the industry and in Switzerland, Swissair faced bankruptcy.
We suggest that the priorities of the transport minister should be the following: first, to reassure the flying public; second, to address the safety concerns; third, to help or assist the industry through this turmoil; and, fourth and most important, to ensure long term competition in the industry.
If we compare what happened in Canada with what happened in the United States, we must compliment President Bush on his speech in Chicago. He encouraged Americans to fly again and asserted to them that the skies were indeed safe. He called up the national guard and placed guardsmen at inspection stations in airports. He stated :

We will work with the governors to provide security measures--visible security measures--so the travelling public will know that we are serious about airline safety in America.

American airlines dramatically increased the number of federal air marshals on airplanes. President Bush stated further:

When Americans fly, there needs to be more highly skilled and fully equipped officers of law flying alongside them.

An additional action demonstrated by our southern neighbour was $500 million in new funding for aircraft security and grants to airlines for enhanced cockpit protection. American airlines have worked with their pilots to fortify doors and provide stronger locks so pilots would always be in command of the airplanes
Unfortunately the Canadian response has not been as strong. As a result of the events of September 11 the minister addressed the situation on September 26 and Air Canada announced that it would lay off 5,000 people.
The official opposition calls on the Minister of Transport to take four concrete actions: first, to reconvene the transport committee immediately to address the security and financial issues that the air industry is facing; second, to ask Robert Milton of Air Canada and the heads of all Canada's national and regional air carriers to appear before the transport committee immediately to hear arguments for and against possible financial support; third, to institute air marshals today to boost consumer confidence in the airline industry and to offer another layer of air travel security; and fourth, to ask all Canadian air carriers to submit a full list of the direct out of pocket expenses incurred during the days Canada's airports were shut down so that consideration could be given to compensation for those direct costs.
We support Bill C-34 but we want the transport minister and the transport committee to go beyond this. Canadians want their airports, airplanes, highways, rail and seaway navigation made safe. They want security measures put in place.
We want the transport minister to encourage competition so that services can be provided to communities at affordable prices. Canadians are desperately asking for airline competition between healthy airlines. They want safe skies, better airport security, stronger doors, air marshals, and the same standards now being applied in the United States. This is the real job of the transport minister and the transport committee.
To sum up, we will be supporting the bill before us today but I strongly encourage the minister and all members of the House, particularly members of the transport committee, to get involved and address the real concerns raised by the unfortunate terrorist attacks of September 11.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning to Bill C-34, an act to establish the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Allow me first to pay tribute to the member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, the Bloc Quebecois's transportation critic, who does excellent work here in the House and in committee.
As the Minister of Transport mentioned earlier, the member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel had the opportunity to question officials, to make comments and to have certain clauses of Bill C-34 explained to him.
As a result, I can assure the minister that the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-34. The bill has the advantage of bringing together under one tribunal various transportation related statutes. I think that we could not ask for more than a bill that consolidates all such legislation under a single one.
The purpose of the bill is to reduce processing times, to almost nothing in some cases. Red tape and various contexts and interpretations of laws often have the effect of increasing delays. The bill would reduce them in some cases.
The tribunal would be established to provide an improved and less cumbersome system for appeals by citizens or companies following a suspension or a fine in the transportation sector. The tribunal would hear requests for review under the following acts: the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Railway Safety Act.
The tribunal would also hear requests and appeals on administrative monetary penalties set out in sections 177 to 181 of the Canada Shipping Act. In addition, it would hear appeals from determinations made on review.
The tribunal would be based on the model of the Civil Aviation Tribunal which was established in 1986 and which has proven itself.
There are a number of reasons to support the bill, the main one being that it would improve resource management. When all the resources are grouped together under one roof, staff efficiencies can only be improved.
Also, shortening the time involved would eliminate hours and often months of waiting, which means that waiting periods would be shorter. Allowing plaintiffs to represent themselves means that they will not have to hire lawyers, which is often very costly, yet still allow them to still go ahead with civil proceedings. The fact that there is an alternative within the Department of Transport does not mean that people will not be allowed to opt for civil proceedings.
There is also the issue of avoiding one's responsibilities. We know that in the area of transportation it often happens--as it did on several occasions in the marine and aviation industries--that people want to file a complaint but do not know where to send it.
For example, when people want to file a complaint regarding transportation do they send it to the Department of Transport, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the ports and wharves branch, Parks Canada, the coast guard or to the Department of the Environment?
We can see the complexity of the process. People may be victim of an illegal action but do not know which department or service to turn to. Even if they want to file a complaint with the Government of Canada, with the departments involved in the marine industry, they may have to deal with various levels and, again, experience some problems.
Those same people could also have problems with the aviation industry. In such instances they would naturally turn to Transport Canada, which might then say that is was the airline's fault or carrier's fault that the people should file complaints or their claims with the competition bureau with Nav Canada or the airport managers, or go back to the travel agency or even the carrier which can file a complaint itself.
If one single tribunal can be created, with qualified and competent staff, one that is less unwieldy and is set up to handle cases promptly, then Bill C-34 could be beneficial to all those needing to make use of it.
It would not in any way replace court proceedings but instead would offer an alternative.
The tribunal would also make it possible to handle at one single point appeals relating to transportation in general. The tribunal, it must be pointed out, would not handle complicated cases requiring hearings with lawyers present.
Certain clarifications by the Minister of Transport are required. When it is stated that the tribunal will not handle complicated cases requiring the presence of lawyers, I think it will be necessary to specify the criteria for determining the complexity of cases. This will be important.
A mention has been made of shortening the time for someone to get to appear before the tribunal. However, once the file has been examined it might be determined that it is too complex and requires a lawyer. I believe that those administering this act will have to set criteria in advance for determination of whether a case is complicated and complex.
The bill also mentions that members shall be appointed to hold office during good behaviour for a term not exceeding seven years and that they are eligible to be reappointed. It is important to clarify whether what is meant is that seven years is the maximum term or that members are eligible for reappointment every seven years. It is important that the bill be clear on this point.
Regarding the right to appeal, if a complainant's case is thrown out by the tribunal but the complainant wishes to try again, may the case be heard by other members? Do people who have lost their case the first time around but who wish to exercise their right of appeal need to be heard by the same members? If they did the odds that the tribunal would rule differently would be slim.
I think there should be a provision that would allow people who represent themselves before the Department of Transport's tribunal to be heard by other members.
In conclusion, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, the Bloc Quebecois will be supporting Bill C-34. We are in favour of the bill because it has the advantage of bringing together under one tribunal various statutes for which the Department of Transport is responsible.
The purpose of the bill is to reduce processing times to almost nothing in some cases. This does not seem to be too cumbersome and is a simple and effective way of proceeding. The bill has the advantage of trying to make recourse easier for the public.
The Bloc Quebecois has always supported any efforts by the House of Commons to improve the operation of government. We cannot criticize a bill when we see that it will be more efficient, more cost effective and less cumbersome. The Bloc Quebecois will be voting in favour of Bill C-34.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-34, an act to establish the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
The bill would establish the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada. The New Democrats will be supporting the bill and the principle of independent scrutiny, review and appeal of decisions made by the Department of Transport.
The transportation appeal tribunal would be made up of people with transportation expertise who are able to accurately assess the problems facing employees and employers within the trucking industry and of course the travelling public.
Travellers would be able to have their views aired and resolved. The appeal tribunal would give them a sounding board to have their complaints dealt with. That is something that has been sorely absent.
The bill is relatively straightforward. The transportation appeal tribunal would be an expansion of the Civil Aviation Tribunal which was provided for by part IV of the Aeronautics Act. It makes complete sense to extend to the marine and rail industries what is already available to the aviation sector.
The Civil Aviation Tribunal has been extremely successful. A transportation appeal tribunal would be an independent, quasi-judicial body that could review and appeal transportation decisions. It would replace the internal review process that currently exists.
We support and welcome greater scrutiny of ministerial decisions. It has always been preferable to have a separate and impartial body that can hear appeals.
There is certainly a need to have a separate and impartial body to oversee decisions made by the Department of Transport. This is evident in light of what the department is doing with respect to hours of service regulations for the trucking industry.
The New Democrats have had great concerns about hours of service regulations for motor carriers. The Liberal government is changing the regulations to allow truck and bus drivers to be on the road 84 hours a week. Hon. members should stop and imagine what it would be like to be behind the wheel of a truck 84 hours a week.
I live in a province where truck traffic is already involved in many of the accidents on our highways. I shudder to think that the number of accidents could be drastically increased by having exhausted drivers behind the wheels of trucks.
By endorsing proposals from the Canadian Trucking Alliance that would put truck drivers in the position of having to work an 84 hour week, we would be ushering in by far the most lax regulations for truck driver hours in the western world.
This is not the kind of record we would be proud of. Politicians and bureaucrats are apparently convinced that improving trucking industry profitability would be good for the economy. There appears to be little concern about the likely downside of the change: more death and injury on the road.
I hope this is an example of how there is a need for an impartial ministerial review of such an issue. Truck driver hours is an important issue and the transportation appeal tribunal could deal with it reasonably. An independent appeal and review process would prevent costly action from having to be taken in court. It would be common sense.
The tribunal would in my mind simplify and streamline the whole appeal and review process which in this area as well as many others including human rights and disability claims is cumbersome, time consuming and frustrating for the Canadian public.
I am pleased to be able to say the New Democrats will be supporting Bill C-34. We will be watching to make sure it meets the needs of the Canadian people.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was heartened to hear the comments of the member opposite. She has taken a fair bit of time to review the legislation and I believe she understands it fully.
Could she elaborate a bit on the appeal tribunal act in terms of how it might affect her province? What kind of impact might it have in that part of Canada? How it would apply across Canada is important and well worth thinking about. Could the hon. member assist me in that regard?
Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment from the member across the floor. My hope would be that the transportation appeal tribunal would begin to deal with some of the very critical problems that we have regarding infrastructure of our highways in Atlantic Canada. I do not think it is any secret that we have some of the worst highways in the country. For starters, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are suffering from a terrible decline in highways over the last five or six years.
I would like to see the board as a sounding board for Atlantic Canadians to send a very clear message to the government that it is time to reinvest in a public transportation and highway system that begins to meet the needs of people across the country, but certainly in Nova Scotia. We never feel we are being heard in Atlantic Canada on these issues. This is one more opportunity, as well as members being able to stand up and speak in the House, to send a loud and clear message that we need investments in our transportation system.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak on behalf of the coalition for Bill C-34. I hope my colleague from the NDP is not disappointed in the fact that the legislation will do nothing to allow her province or any other province to bring the issue of infrastructure to the government's attention.
I believe I am the only speaker today who attended the committee meeting when the legislation was reviewed. It is a piece of legislation that just responds to decisions that the government has made with regard to the aviation acts, the marine acts and the rail acts. The bill has no presence at this point with the trucking transportation network.
I am pleased to hear that the minister is looking at other legislation regarding transportation. One concern I have had over the years is that there has been a dire lack of a transportation plan by the government. I am hopeful that the legislation we can look forward to receiving is an indication that the government actually has a plan for transportation in Canada. I hope that plan for transportation looks at transportation networks on a continental basis and not just from a national level, although our attention is at a national level.
I am hopeful that the minister respects, and the legislation shows that he does, that each modal of transportation does not operate in isolation. They all interconnect one way or another.
Bill C-34 is basically a housekeeping piece of legislation and is probably long overdue. The aviation tribunal, the predecessor of the tribunal being established, has been successful in meeting the requirements and concerns of the aviation industry.
I am hopeful that reputation and response will continue through marine and rail modals. I am hopeful that the appointments to be made will take into consideration that we need expertise not only from aviation, but from the other modes of transportation as well.
I suggest that the timing of this is probably very appropriate as there have been changes to the marine transportation which may down the road cause some concerns that decisions might be made by governments that want to be challenged.
We had the marine legislation brought before us over the last year and a half which made changes to the way that operates. This tribunal will broaden its scope and will allow the marine industry to question some of the decisions that are made as a result of that legislation. The timing is very good for this particular change.
I mentioned at the committee that we had been assured by the department that it had received input from the marine and rail industries as to the tribunal and the operations it would be partaking in. We understand from government officials in transportation that the concerns of those industries have been addressed and that this legislation is acceptable to them. Having not heard from either the rail or the marine industry, the committee believed that they it was right in moving forward and giving the government its assurance that we would be supporting this.
I am pleased on behalf of the coalition, to give the government our support for increasing the responsibilities of the tribunal to include the marine and the rail industry. We look forward to another successful tenure for those people who are appointed to the tribunal and that they help the government make the right decisions to move the transportation industries forward in the future.
I urge the minister to look at transportation planning from a broad perspective, including all modals, not just nationally but also continentally.
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend's comments. She decries the lack of a national transportation policy by the government. She has been here since 1993 and I want to remind her of some of the radical changes that have been brought forward by the government.
We brought forward the Canada Transportation Act in 1996, the national airports policy, the Nav Canada legislation, the CN privatization, the Canada Marine Act, the airline restructuring bill, the Canada Shipping Act, Part 1 and 2, and the Marine Liability Act. Earlier in my speech, I talked about the legislation that I would be bringing forward in the future.
I also want to underscore the fact that I have initiated a transportation blueprint process, which is to look forward to the next 10 to 20 years so that we can have a comprehensive plan.
I hope the hon. member would recognize that the government is, despite the ongoing crises in the airline industry and other parts of transportation, indeed looking at a comprehensive approach in the years ahead.
Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments and I look forward to seeing the follow up to the blueprint he presented.
However, generally there is a blueprint and a plan before legislation, such as the minister has just recited, is introduced. Normally a plan is put in place first, indicating where the government is going, then the legislation needed to move that forward is brought in. The minister has just confirmed that what the government has done over the past number of years is piecemeal. The legislation has been put on the table without it being part of an overall plan.
I am pleased to see that, after eight years in the government, the minister has come up with a blueprint that looks at transportation over a ten year period, and, after eight years, the government is finally putting a plan together.
Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, by bringing this bill forward the Minister of Transport has indicated that this is a very important piece of the transportation puzzle. It is not a piecemeal approach, contrary to what was said by the last speaker. As outlined by the minister and the government it is a great vision of what we need to do regarding transportation.
The fact that there is widespread support for the bill underscores the commitment of some of the other parties in the House that this is an important bill well worth consideration and support. At the end of the day that will be precisely what we see.
It is part of the overall plan of our government to proceed with transportation matters in a manner consistent with the values of Canada and, more important, with the needs and requirements of the various regions across Canada. It is the position of the federal government that we need to do the kinds of things necessary to ensure that takes place.
Bill C-34, an act to establish the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada, is a very good bill and one worthy of note. I would like to outline some of the things that would happen as a result of the legislation.
The Civil Aviation Tribunal, CAT, is an independent, quasi-judicial body established in 1986 to review administration enforcement decisions taken under the Aeronautics Act. There is a bit of history here. The Civil Aviation Tribunal performed to the satisfaction of both Transport Canada as well as the aviation community for over 15 years. We applaud the good work the tribunal has done over the years. It is a good example of regulatory best practice. We commend it and look at how it might apply in other areas because it has done such good work over the last number of years.
It has shifted reviews and appeals of enforcement decisions under the Aeronautics Act from the minister, senior department officials and the courts to an administrative body characterized by independence, expertise, expediency, affordability, fairness and transparency. This is a great hallmark for the tribunal. It made the transformation in a manner consistent with the values of Canada and with what Canadians expect from a regulatory body.
In the fall of 1988 consultations were held with the various transportation sectors on a departmental proposal to transform the CAT into a multi-modal tribunal so that the enforcement review processes available to the aviation sector under the Aeronautics Act would be available to other transport sectors as well. Those discussions went well as some very good conclusions were reached as a result of a great deal of dialogue with the various partners and stakeholders in the transport area.
The acts principally implicated are: the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Railway Safety Act. The new shipping legislation as proposed in Bill C-14 is also implicated as is the Canada Transportation Act. A wide number of acts are affected in this very important area.
The proposed transportation appeal tribunal of Canada bill is modeled after legislation that established the Civil Aviation Tribunal, part IV of the Aeronautics Act. The latter would be repealed by this legislation.
The TATC bill addresses, first, the jurisdictions of the new tribunal in very general terms; second, the appointment of members including the designation of a chairperson and a vice-chairperson; and, third, the qualifications of tribunal members hearing particular cases on review and on appeal. In general terms cases must be presided over by members with expertise in the particular sector, although there are exemptions medical cases or other related issues.
Fourth, it also addresses the nature of tribunal hearings, including that strict rules of evidence do not apply and that the standard of proof in hearings is on the balance of probabilities; fifth, the authority of the tribunal to hold hearings in private in defined circumstances; and, sixth, the authority of the tribunal to award costs and expenses in defined circumstances.
These are important sections to remember and important aspects to note. They underscore the commitment of the government to ensure flexibility and fairness.
The authority of the tribunal to hold its hearings in private is broader than is the comparable authority of the CAT. The bill would provide that hearings could be held in private where they might disclose personal medical information or business information of a highly confidential nature and where the private interests of the individual or company in keeping the information confidential outweigh the general principle that hearings be conducted in public. Prudence and common sense are the orders of the day.
The ability of the tribunal to award costs and/or expenses in defined circumstances is new. The CAT does not have the comparable authority. The tribunal may award costs and the reimbursement of expenses where a matter brought before it is frivolous or vexatious, where a party fails to appear at a hearing without justification, and where the tribunal grants an adjournment at the request of a party on short notice.
This underscores the fact that these folk mean business, and well they should because this is a very important sector of the Canadian economy. They would act in a very expeditious fashion. That is exactly what is outlined here and what would take place.
While the tribunal bill addresses the jurisdiction of the tribunal in a very general sense, the tribunal's specific authorities and decision making powers are set out in various modal transportation acts outlined in other sections.
Similar to the decision making authorities of the CAT, the tribunal would have the final decision making authority in punitive cases where safety is not an issue, for example the assessment by the minister of an administrative monetary penalty against an air carrier for a regulation contravention. That would be an example where the new tribunal would act.
However where safety, competence and qualifications are at issue, for example the suspension of a seaman's certificate because he or she is medically unfit, the tribunal would only be available to confirm the minister's decision or refer it back to the minister for reconsideration
These are very important aspects of the tribunal. They underscore the commitment of the government to act in a manner consistent with the way things should operate in Canada. I believe it is very important in that sense.
There are a number of proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act that would include clarifying the authority of the minister to refuse to issue or amend Canadian aviation documents and establish the jurisdiction of the tribunal in relation to such decisions, for example to confirm the minister's decision or to refer it back to the minister for reconsideration; revising the procedures for the assessment by the minister and review by the tribunal of administrative monetary penalties; authorizing the minister to refuse to issue, amend or renew, or to suspend Canadian aviation documents based on outstanding monetary penalties being owed by the applicant or document holder. These decisions are not reviewable by the tribunal.
There are two additional amendments that are worthy of note: to clarify when certain decisions by the minister related to Canadian aviation documents may come into effect and to repeal of part IV of the act which established the Civil Aviation Tribunal, thereby allowing for seamless transition to the tribunal.
There are also amendments that would affect the Canada Shipping Act. A number of statutes would be affected as a result of this new bill and I will highlight those now. The proposed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act would establish the jurisdiction of the tribunal under section 120, the suspension of a personnel certificate by reason of medical incapacitation; section 125, the suspension or cancellation of a personnel certificate based on a false statement or fraud; section 128, the suspension or cancellation of a foreign certificate; section 133, suspension of a personnel certificate based on convictions for specified offences; and section 504, the suspension or cancellation of a personnel certificate which is based on various grounds.
The procedures for tribunal review are comparable to those proposed in the new shipping legislation, Bill C-14. The role of the adjudicators would be assumed by the tribunal. This is very important because it makes that kind of shift in a way that is consistent with government policy and the very good vision of the Minister of Transport in this all important matter.
There are three things I will highlight. First, 30 days' notice of a proposed suspension or cancellation of a personnel certificate must be given, unless the minister then makes an ex parte application to the tribunal to have the certificate action take effect immediately. Second, in cases involving competency, qualifications and other safety matters, the tribunal is limited to confirming the minister's decision or referring it back to the minister for reconsideration.
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is time to move on to other matters. After question period he will have seven minutes remaining in the time for his remarks, followed by questions and comments.

Statements By Members
Margaret ArkinstallMrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the late Dr. Margaret Arkinstall, pioneer, physician, community and church leader, letter writer, music lover and family Christmas song composer.
In the early 1930s Dr. Margaret and her husband provided medical services in northern Ontario. Years later the family moved to York North where she continued her practice and became a founding member of the Newmarket Home Service to Seniors. Last year she was made a member of the Order of Canada.
In her nineties, Dr. Margaret headed a group called the Friends of New Canadian Citizens. My favourite memory of Dr. Margaret is the welcome speeches she gave at the end of every Citizenship Court when she would rise and deliver a warm, articulate welcome to each of the new Canadians present.
Her talents were many and remarkable. The lives she touched and healed are too numerous to count. We will miss her sharp wit, her intelligence, her tenacity, her decency and her grace.
AgricultureMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, food producers feel that they have a target on their back. Faced with unnecessary gun control regulations, bizarre animal rights legislation, a punitive species at risk bill and an uninformed GMO labelling campaign, rural people should feel threatened.
On top of all this, the Liberals are actively trying to convince Canadians that there is no public support for farmers. They are wrong.
Since this past March the agriculture department has twice tried to manipulate agriculture polling results. Its own polling, which it now refuses to release, indicates that 70% of Canadians believe that the government should “do whatever it has to do in order to ensure the survival of the family farm in Canada even if this means that we have to pay a little more in income tax”.
This is in line with Canadian Alliance polls which show that over three-quarters of Canadians recognize that farmers should receive subsidies to help them compete until farm subsidies in other nations are lowered.
While there may be a target being drawn on food producers, it is not the Canadian people who are taking aim. The frightening thing is that it is the very department which is supposed to promote agriculture that is drawing a bead on Canadian producers.
Occupational Therapy WeekMrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week is Occupational Therapy Week. The Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists encourages us to take a moment to set balanced priorities in our lives, plan our activities, establish a healthy pace, and develop a work environment that is well ordered and less stressful.
Occupational therapists have the skills to help people with the job of living. They assist in designing people friendly workplaces and help people to cope with injuries. They also reduce workplace stress by helping to develop realistic and balanced lifestyles.
Reducing stress is an important goal for all Canadians. The Canadian Mental Health Association estimates that workplace stress and related illness cost the Canadian economy $5 billion a year. Stress also affects people outside the workplace including caregivers, children, stay at home parents and the elderly.
Let us all take a moment this week to prioritize, plan, pace and position ourselves to lead happier, less stressful and more productive lives.
Small Business WeekMr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during Small Business Week we celebrate entrepreneurship. In my riding small business forms the economic foundation of the many communities scattered across the three counties of Hastings, Frontenac, and Lennox and Addington from the shores of Lake Ontario in the south to Algonquin Park in the north.
Before serving the citizens of my riding as their member of parliament my wife Reta and I operated a country store in the village of Camden East. I know something about the dreams, the skills, the perseverance, and the hard work small businessmen and women invest in their communities.
In the vast majority of instances business people not only run their operations. They are volunteers on local boards, from library boards to environmental committees. They often serve municipally, from elected municipal officials to volunteer firepersons.
Today as Small Business Week concludes it is an honour to salute the entrepreneurs who make up this important sector, both for their contributions to the national economy and to the social fabric of our communities. I ask members to join me in applauding Canada's entrepreneurs.
HousingMrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, professionals have manuals for maintaining our cars and appliances, but what about our homes? Since a house is a person's biggest investment it makes sense to maintain it over the years.
Thanks to the people at Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, industry professionals will have such a tool to help them do just that. The comprehensive CMHC manual provides valuable information about looking after the basement, the outside walls and exterior features of a house, as well as providing information on its heating, electrical and plumbing systems.
Builders, warranty providers and property managers have all been quick to pick up on its benefits. Endorsed by the Canadian Home Builders' Association and the Canadian New Home Warranty Council, this manual serves as both a reference guide and a service tool for builders.
EducationMr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last spring Constable Mike Ingles and Vice Principal Jamie Doyle asked me to a meeting to discuss their idea for a conference involving three high schools. Last week I had the privilege of taking part in that conference, the theme of which was respect, that spent an entire day in each school.
I gave the keynote address and three workshops on youth violence each day. Students rotated through presentations of their choice. Time prevents me from naming all the presenters but they included: Dianne Sowden, whose daughter became involved in the sex trade and drugs at the age of 13; Jade Bell, a former addict who as a result of an overdose is confined to a wheelchair and speaks through a computer; and Rock Solid, a group of police officers who draw on their experiences to encourage young people to speak out when they are victimized among other things.
I salute the organizers and school staff for the concept and making it work. I commend the students of Len Shepherd Secondary, West Whalley Secondary and Guildford Park Secondary who through the respect they showed to the presenters, their teachers and each other made the whole exercise a tremendous success.
EB Awareness WeekMs. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, October 27, I will have the honour to attend the celebration of the 2001 inaugural of Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB) Awareness Week. EB Awareness Week was founded to bring attention to this group of rare and genetic skin diseases for which there is no cure. I congratulate my constituent, Kevin Campbell, for his determination and hard work for making EB awareness a reality.
Last year the Minister of Health announced the creation of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and funding for health research. Through these efforts I hope the day will come when this devastating skin disease is wiped from the face of the earth.
Laval Symphony OrchestraMs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on October 22, the ADISQ recognized the extraordinary talent of the Laval symphony orchestra by awarding it with its album of the year award in the classical music, orchestras and large ensembles category.
Entitled Mozart , the award-winning album brilliantly illustrates the unique personality of the LSO and the energetic spirit of its conductor, Jean-François Rivest.
Claude Gingras, a music critic who usually is quite parsimonious with his praise, was so taken with Jean-François Rivest and pianist Alain Lefèvre, that he wrote, with reference to them, that both conductor and pianist imbue the musical passages with an exquisite chamber music quality. Listening to Rivest or Lefèvre, it could even be said that, with their extremely subtle artistry, they take Mozart's music one step further .
The LSO sets itself apart with its enthusiasm, freshness and sensitivity; despite the fact that it has been around for only 15 years, it demonstrates remarkable maturity. This recognition by the ADISQ gives us every reason to believe that the orchestra has a brilliant future ahead of it.
Bravo to the LSO and to its conductor, Jean-François Rivest. The people of Laval are very proud of you.
TradeMr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was alleged that I called environmental rights and labour rights garbage. Hansard proves that statement is absolutely and totally false. What I did say was:

EU ministers are adamant that we not litter up trade deals by trying to include environmental and labour standards in those trade deals. It is best done in side agreements.

It is appalling that my words were so badly twisted. I thank my colleague who attempted to clarify matters, the hon. member for Haliburton--Victoria--Brock. I hope there will be better attention to the truth in the future by the NDP member for Churchill.
Murray KrauseMr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in our gallery today we have a very distinguished gentleman from Prince George, B.C. Murray Krause is executive director of the Central Interior Native Health Society in Prince George. He was elected as a city councillor in 1993. He serves on the board of directors for the College of New Caledonia, is chair of the Health Match B.C. advisory board, is a member of the Provincial Co-ordinating Committee on Rural and Remote Health Services, is chair of the Prince George Intercultural Committee, is chair of the Prince George Standing Committee on Youth, and is a member of the Hate Activities Task Force in Prince George.
Murray gives back a lot to the community. It is no wonder he was nominated for and received the distinction of Citizen of the Year for 2000.
Gay Games 2006Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning, we learned the good news that Montreal has been chosen to host the Gay Games VII, which will take place in 2006. The games are expected to draw more than 24,000 athletes and 200,000 visitors. This is great news for Montreal and for Quebec.
This event will enrich our cultural and sports life, as well as producing approximately $150 million in economic spinoffs. This good news demonstrates the openness of Montrealers and the energetic spirit of the gay community.
I would like to highlight the significant co-operation between the three levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal. This is an example of the great things that can be accomplished when our governments work together.
In closing, allow me to congratulate the organizers and sponsors of the Montreal bid on their most successful efforts.
Sydney Tar PondsWendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, we have just learned that there is another delay for the families living near the Sydney Tar Ponds. The anxiously awaited report on the levels of danger to the residents of Whitney Pier is being revised.
This is one of the worst environmental disasters in Canada and nothing is being done about it except studying it to death. Families have been living with uncertainty for months and are now being told they must wait at least another six weeks to find out how great the danger is.
This is outrageous. People's lives are at risk. People are sick and people are dying. The area has one of the highest rates of cancer and birth defects in Canada. A report released in April showed there are at least 35 toxins in the Whitney Pier neighbourhood, including arsenic at 70 times the acceptable limit.
The latest delay amounts to fiddling with statistics while people get sicker. The report must be released now and the issue must be brought before the parliamentary committees on environment and health. We need action, not delays.
Employment InsuranceGérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, back in May, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development presented to the minister a unanimous report on the urgent need to go beyond Bill C-2.
Close to five months later, the Liberal government responded to the 17 recommendations by rejecting all of them. Even though six out of ten people who are unemployed continue to be excluded from the employment insurance program, the minister simply said that everything was fine.
Yesterday, when the minister was unable to indicate the estimated EI surplus, she justified her ignorance by saying that it was a “notional” surplus.
The minister showed once again that she is in over her head as a cabinet member and that she remains insensitive to the workers' plight.
TerrorismLynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, since the tragic terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, Canadians have expressed concern about their own security. While we must be vigilant and alert I urge Canadians not to panic. The terrorists seek not only to destroy our buildings and take innocent lives. They seek to change the way we view the world around us and make us suspicious of one another.
The terrorists will not succeed. Canadians will continue to go about their daily activities. We will fly on airplanes, assemble in public places and go on with our business and personal lives.
I reassure Canadians that our government has taken and will continue to take strong action to mitigate the terrorist threat. As a government we will do what is necessary to make sure Canadians are safe and secure in their homes, neighbourhoods, communities and in this great country of ours.
HealthMr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, we appear to have the first casualty of the Liberal leadership race. The Minister of Health has been trying to throw out Hail Mary's to get back into the game with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Industry. He is throwing incomplete passes and may be replaced by the coach very soon.
First, the Minister of Health broke cabinet solidarity by voting against the government on GMOs. Then he completely mishandled the Cipro deal causing great embarrassment to the government. The--
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Dewdney--Alouette I am sure is aware of the rules that Standing Order 31 statements cannot be used as attacks on an individual member. I think he is stepping over the line here. Even though it appears his tact may be good natured, I have a feeling he is over the line.
Laval Symphony OrchestraMs. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week, as part of its non-broadcast gala, the ADISQ recognized the talent of the Laval symphony orchestra by presenting it the Album of the year award in the classical music/orchestra and large band category.
The winning album “Mozart” includes two major works of the great composer, namely the magnificent “Concerto No. 23”, which is full of light, softness and joie de vivre, and the “Symphony No. 41”, known as “Jupiter”, which is avant-garde and dramatic.
The wonderful rendition of these works by the orchestra earned it the top awards thanks to the internationally renown pianist Alain Lefèvre and the conductor and artistic director of the Laval symphony orchestra, Jean-François Rivest, who was able to channel the talent of his musicians with his usual energy.
This award confirms the enviable position of the Laval symphony orchestra at the national level.
Lumber IndustryMr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber dispute is continuing to victimize workers and their families and penalize the economies of Canada and the U.S. We have more than 20,000 forest workers laid off across Canada, the North American economy dipping into recession and consumers retreating from spending.
On Wednesday I asked once again for the minister to call a national stakeholders meeting to get the Canadian forest sector on the same page prior to next week's anticipated anti-dumping decision by the U.S. department of commerce. Once again no meeting has been announced by the minister.
Yesterday two U.S. consumer groups urged U.S. and Canadian negotiators to resist lumber export taxes because higher prices hurt consumers.
The minister cannot drop the ball on softwood lumber. When will we have the national stakeholders meeting?

Oral Question Period
ImmigrationMr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the United Nations national safe list includes those countries from which no fugitive could credibly claim fear of being killed, tortured or persecuted for their religious or political beliefs. Canada, the United States and most European countries are on that list.
This week the government shockingly voted against a Canadian Alliance motion that Canada not accept fugitives running here from the United States claiming bogus refugee status.
Now we learn the government is negotiating an agreement with the United States which in effect would agree with the Canadian Alliance motion, the very motion the government voted against. Is this true?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition clearly does not understand either the safe third agreement or the fact that my officials speak with their U.S. counterparts and have talks about how we can better co-ordinate our activities and better co-operate on a whole host of very important issues.
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, very interesting. We will be watching that closely.
The immigration committee wrote in 1998, and I quote:

--it strains public credibility when people who arrive in Canada without travel documents--

That means they have destroyed their documents to get here.

--are allowed to enter Canada and remain at large pending the hearing of their refugee claim.

This is one of the well known weaknesses of our refugee system.
Will the minister and the government have a change of heart and accept the committee's recommendation and the Canadian Alliance recommendation that all suspicious new arrivals, that would be those without documents included, not be--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, if we have any concerns that people who arrive at a port of entry, be they refugee claimants or potential visitors, pose any security threat to Canada, if we do not know who they are or if the immigration officers have reasonable grounds to believe they pose a threat, they are detained. That is the fact.
Stockwell Day: In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, it does not happen.
One of the essential elements for a bilateral agreement between safe third countries is for there to be a common visa policy. The United States has more stringent policies for issuing visas than Canada does.
Does the minister of immigration intend to harmonize our list of countries with a visa requirement with the U.S. list?
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to explain this fully yesterday at the immigration committee hearing.
We discussed with the United States and other countries, but particularly with the United States, emerging trends in the world where there may be a need for a visa imposition or where a visa requirement could be lifted. That is ongoing business.
I would say to the leader that he gives the wrong impression to suggest that we are not consulting. We certainly are and we always have. Because of our good relationship with the United States, my officials speak virtually every day with our neighbours.
HealthMr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the health minister is now going to stockpile vaccine against smallpox.
I would like to quote what my medical textbook says about the terrorism threat:

The recurrence of smallpox resulting from a deliberate release of variola virus cannot be ruled out. However, the potential damage of such an act should not be exaggerated.

Why has the health minister not quietly stockpiled smallpox vaccine instead of making a big announcement so that he can divert attention away from his other problems with Cipro?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped this would be the kind of matter we could discuss in the interests and in the protection of the public and its health.
Yesterday before the committee I responded to a question put by the hon. member's colleague in the Alliance Party about what we were doing in this regard. I responded by being very frank and saying that like other countries, we were taking responsible steps to protect Canadians against all eventualities, and that is exactly what we will continue to do.
Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, the text goes on to say:

Smallpox does not spread rapidly, and an outbreak caused in this manner (that is by bioterrorism) should be able to be contained within 3 to 4 weeks.

The minister could have easily and quietly stockpiled this vaccine. He could have done what they have done in other countries instead of making a great big fuss about this.
Why did the minister try to divert attention away from his Cipro blunder by bringing up something to scare Canadians?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the member should read along farther in whatever he is looking at because if it is accurate, it will tell him that there is no more smallpox vaccine stockpiled in the world.
We have some on hand from 25 years ago. There is more now being developed. When I met with Secretary Thompson in the United States, I told him Canada was interested in working with the Americans on the development of that new vaccine and that we want to be part of the process when it is available. We will do what is necessary once again to protect the health of Canadians.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the Minister of Health was at fault in totally ignoring a report from his own department in June 2000 indicating that Canada was not in a position to deal with a bioterrorism attack. He has just recently not even hesitated to break the law in order to conceal his errors in judgment.
Does the minister realize that the message he is sending to the public is that he will resort to anything to conceal his errors in judgment, up to and including breaking the law?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, it is very important for Canadians to know that Health Canada has been working for some months on preparing itself for emergency situations here in Canada.
Among other things, Health Canada inaugurated an emergency centre in July 2000. We now have stockpiles of drugs. As well, we have put in place co-ordinated emergency response measures and will continue our efforts.
Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, it is all very well for the Minister of Health to use the emergency situation as a cover-up, but there is one thing he cannot get around, something everyone has understood: the favoured approach of the minister and of his government is that the end justifies the means.
Will the Minister of Health admit that this kind of approach is irresponsible and dangerous, particularly in a time of crisis?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, what is most important to me and to the government is to protect and ensure the health of Canadians.
This is exactly what we have done. We now have the necessary drugs. A week ago that was not the case, but now it is. We have saved Canadians money.
We are going to continue to do whatever is necessary to protect people's health.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to the Department of Health, it was because Bayer could not produce the drug within 48 hours that the department decided to break the law and get it from Apotex, which would deliver the order three weeks later.
In what way does the minister think that such a disgraceful manoeuvre would protect public health?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, what Canadians expect from us as a government is that we should always act with their protection in mind.
Where bioterrorism is concerned, we must do what is necessary to have access to drugs designed to counter such threats.
All week, the focus in the House has been on what was done. But ultimately, we did what we did to protect people's health and we now have the necessary drugs.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, Health Canada contacted Novopharm to ask it to supply Cipro and Novopharm said that it was illegal to do so, which should have alerted the minister.
The question in everyone's mind today is how something that was illegal for Novopharm could become legal for Apotex. Could the minister explain this?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, Canadians can see the facts and what matters most.
And what matters most is health, putting in place measures to effectively meet threats.
This is precisely what we did. We at Health Canada took action to have the necessary drugs available and now they are.
Employment InsuranceMr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
The government decided to ignore the recommendations made by the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, which were supported by the Liberals, outlined in a report entitled “Beyond Bill C-2”, regarding changes to the employment insurance program.
Given this decision, what steps does ACOA intend to take in order to help people who will have to deal with the gap next January?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, ACOA continues to work together with the communities and provinces of Atlantic Canada to create jobs, which are long term, not short term and to promote sustainable economic development.
I invite the member to work with me for the future of Atlantic Canada.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I have been working with the government for four years now to find solutions for our regions, but the government has been unable to come up with any.
Employment insurance belongs to the workers.
With respect to employment insurance, what is the minister going to do, in the short term, to create jobs for this coming January, so that people will not have to cope with the gap that the Liberals force them to deal with every year?
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, Atlantic Canadians are very happy with what ACOA is doing for economic development. There have already been 62,000 jobs created in Atlantic Canada and we continue to work with the community.
In the short term, there is the infrastructure program between Canada and the provinces. We are leading the rest of Canada when it comes to signing agreements with communities and the provinces.
CsisMr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the report of the security intelligence review committee expresses concern about CSIS priorities. Our overseas CSIS agents are apparently so busy assisting with the processing of legitimate refugee claimants that they do not have time to track and catch illegals who pose a threat to our national security.
Yesterday we learned of a high tech stowaway in a container destined for Canada but we had to learn of his existence from Italian authorities rather than from CSIS.
Why has the solicitor general not issued a ministerial directive for CSIS to refocus its foreign operations from pushing paper to actually identifying and preventing illegal immigrants from entering Canada?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, part of the reason would be because they caught him in Italy.
Another thing is the RCMP and CSIS work in co-operation with Italian authorities and all other authorities around the world to make sure that individuals who pose a threat to the security of this country or other countries are brought to justice.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, somehow the Prime Minister thinks that all refugees who are terrorists are going to arrive by planes. There is a story about cargo boy, a suspected al-Qaeda terrorist bound for Canada, who was picked up in a routine inspection in Italy, which shows that people still do travel by boat.
Ships are requested to call customs 96 hours in advance. The coast guard, our first line of defence since the Liberals cut the ports police, had 250 positions eliminated. Its radar only provides 20% coverage.
How can the government possibly justify its actions, which have left our massive coastline so vulnerable to terrorists? What happens if the terrorists simply decide not to call?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, again it is a prime example of security agencies working together around the world. What we must have is an efficient security intelligence agency and police force, and we have it.
I believe what took place yesterday in Italy is a prime example of what co-operation can do for the security of all nations around the world.
HealthJames Rajotte: Mr. Speaker, we need to encourage research and development in Canada so that Canadians can have access to well paying, long term jobs. For companies to do research and development in Canada, they need clear legal guidelines and a commitment by the government to enforce and respect those guidelines.
How will research and development companies every trust Canada as a safe place to do business and employ Canadians when our own government violates patent laws?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question because I recently had experience with those laws. I can tell the member we do respect them. Patents are a way to reward and encourage innovation.
This week we sat down with the patent holder, Bayer, and we resolved the matter. We resolved it on a basis that is good for Canadians because we got access to the drugs we need at preferred prices. We did not spend a nickel more than we had to in order to achieve that.
The member should know that we do respect patent laws. We also respect the need to protect the health of Canadian.
James Rajotte: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the government did not respect the patent laws.
The Minister of Health has defended his actions by arguing against the bottom line. The reality is that both the generic and the brand name pharmaceutical companies are large scale business operations. Both need clear legal guidelines to invest in Canada and provide Canadians with drugs to address their medical needs.
How can the government defend breaking arbitrarily its own laws?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the member should know that we took steps to make sure the health of Canadians was protected.
When the patent was an issue we met with the patent holder and resolved the matter with them through agreement. However what was really at issue this past week was not so much the patent law. The issue in this episode was if we were in a position to respond to protecting the health of Canadians should something happen. We are in a position to do so.
Anti-Terrorism LegislationMr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government and the Minister of Health are bungling when faced with a potential emergency, and their actions show that they feel they can break the law.
At the same time, parliament is working on anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-36, and a number of voices are condemning the abuse that could result from this legislation.
Since the government is clearly showing that it overreacts in a crisis, is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to make major amendments to Bill C-36 and include, among other provisions, sunset clauses?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will take a serious look at all the committee's recommendations. I also wish to thank the Bloc Quebecois member for supporting a very important federal measure.
Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that panic is not the best policy, as evidenced this week by the actions of the Minister of Health. It is in emergency situations and in crises that democratic controls are most necessary.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that, as a minimum, his government will pledge to include sunset clauses in its anti-terrorism bill?
Mr. Stephen Owen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brings up a good point and that is the advice coming from the Senate and the House committees looking into Bill C-36. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have said in the House repeatedly that the government, while it has put forward preferred options, is willing to consider all reasonable advice coming from those committees.
National SecurityMr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, first the solicitor general claims the RCMP and CSIS are adequately funded and staffed. Then he jumps on his soapbox explaining why there is a need to throw more money into the security forces. The fact is he is the one who gutted them in the first place. Now police and CSIS investigations are being sidelined because the RCMP does not have enough manpower.
Will the solicitor general stop playing a shell game with the RCMP and immediately ensure that it has adequate personnel so nothing is put on the back burner?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in the House, the government provided in the last budget and since the last budget about $2 billion to the public safety envelope for the security of this nation.
In the last couple of weeks we provided about $100 million extra for police and security intelligence. We have a public safety committee in place to make sure that if any more funds or any more technology are needed it will be provided.
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about the money that was put in since the budget. The budget was so long ago, we cannot remember.
SIRC reports that CSIS is so overloaded with work that it can take years to determine if potential newcomers to our country pose a security threat. This was occurring long before September 11. Since then its workload has increased dramatically.
Again, I ask the solicitor general this. When will CSIS receive the necessary funding to hire more agents so no one slips into this country who poses a threat to the safety and security of Canadians?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is well aware that the director of CSIS has said many times that he has the financial resources to fulfill his mandate. In fact, just a week ago we provided another $10 million in that area.
I am aware there was a backlog in dealing with immigration screening. However I can tell my hon. colleague that that backlog has been cleaned up.
The EnvironmentMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, throughout the negotiations on climate change at the Bonn conference last July, Canada made its four conditions abundantly clear through the press.
At the end of the conference, all four of its conditions for ratifying the Kyoto protocol were met. They were: market mechanisms, carbon sinks, clean development mechanisms, and a compliance regime.
If the minister got everything he wanted in Bonn, why has the Kyoto protocol still not been ratified?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, it is true that we made great strides in Bonn, and I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. member for Windsor West, on his success.
However the Government of Canada cannot act without the support of the provinces and without consulting them. We want the broadest consultations possible with all sectors, including the provinces, before deciding whether Canada should ratify the protocol.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, the minister is well aware that the national assembly has passed a unanimous motion calling on the federal government to ratify the Kyoto protocol.
The fact is that the minister set four conditions in Bonn and these four conditions have been met.
Today Canadians and Quebecers have just one question: What new conditions will Canada set on the eve of the conference of the parties to open in Marrakesh next week?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the member that Quebec's minister of the environment has supported the position of Ontario and Alberta that more consultations with the provinces are needed before the protocol can be ratified. This was just one week ago, the resolution of the National Assembly of Quebec notwithstanding.
Parks CanadaMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as a result of September 11, it is obvious to everyone that we need each and every RCMP officer on duty in our fight against terrorism.
Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage explain why we have RCMP officers filling the job of park wardens when we have capable professionals sitting on the sidelines?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, what is taking place is there is an agreement between Parks Canada and the RCMP. As my hon. colleague is well aware, the RCMP provides support for many agencies of government and Parks Canada happens to be one of these agencies.
Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the minister answered that question. He cannot run his own department. I hope he is not looking after parks.
Parks Canada is spending over $40 million over the next two years for 140 RCMP officers to carry out law enforcement duties in the parks.
Does the minister not think that when our RCMP officers are crying for more resources in our fight against terrorism, that $40 million for them to chase poachers is a complete waste of our valuable and limited resources?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not lower myself to the language that my hon. colleague used in his question.
As I have indicated, the RCMP provides security for many agencies, including Parks Canada, to make sure the law is abided by all people in this country. We will continue to do that.
TerrorismMr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions. Fintrac is taking an expanded mandate with increased funding to combat terrorist activities in Canada.
Could the secretary of state inform the House how this will work and benefit Canadians in general?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members know, Fintrac's current mandate is to deal with and fight money laundering. We have expanded that mandate so that it will also include tracking down terrorist funds. Yesterday we announced that we would add $10 million to its budget.
This is just part of the government's fight against terrorism; $280 million was recently announced, which brings the funding to $1.8 billion announced in the last year for defence, security and fighting terrorism.
AcoaWendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister for ACOA. His ministry has produced a report saying that 23,000 jobs in Atlantic Canada will be lost in the next 26 months. The minister calls the situation very mild.
Is very mild what the minister thinks the impact of unemployment will be on the tens of thousands of Atlantic workers and their families who are out of work and who are on the verge of being laid off?
How can he be so flippant with these good people who are being forced to survive with reduced EI, reduced provincial transfers and totally inadequate social and infrastructure spending from his government?
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for a very good question. The report in question was prepared right after the tragic events of September 11, when we were having trouble getting our goods across the border. With thanks to my colleagues for the good work, the situation has been a lot less severe than had been predicted.
I met this morning with Premier Lord who confirmed that with me. I have been speaking with officials in the government of Nova Scotia. I am quite confident for the future of Atlantic Canada.
Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, the minister well knows that the current infrastructure program was inadequate before September 11. For example, the community of North Preston is in urgent need of a recreation centre. This project is an infrastructure priority for the Halifax regional municipality, but where is the federal commitment? The people of North Preston need this facility now, but the infrastructure program is underfunded.
Will the minister commit to increase the size and rollout of this program in Atlantic Canada so communities like North Preston can get the facilities they need?
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, again I thank the member for her question. I was in the community of North Preston a few weeks ago. I saw the site and talked to them about their plans. I agree with her wholeheartedly. I agree with the municipality also.
I do not think it is a question of underfunding. I think it is a question of rollout. We have been fast at getting infrastructure programs out to Atlantic Canada. That one is under review and is going under an environmental assessment right now. I hope to have a favourable response at a future date.
HealthMr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, before the Standing Committee on Health and here in the House, the Minister of Health insisted that all of the relevant information regarding the Cipro affair was included in his department's affidavit and that it answered all our questions.
We have now learned that a second generic drug company, Novopharm, was approached on October 15 to meet the demand for Cipro.
If the affidavit was indeed complete, why then did it make no mention of Novopharm?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the facts are now clear for members and for the public. What is clear is that Health Canada and my officials always acted in good faith to protect the health of Canadians and to ensure access to the needed drugs.
We will continue to be aggressive in taking the necessary measures to protect the population.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, at the end of this week when the health minister hit rock bottom, let me remind the Prime Minister what he said when he was in opposition. He said:

--every minister in the cabinet that I will be presiding over will have to take full responsibility for what is going on in his department. If there is any bungling in the department, nobody will be singled out. The minister will have to take the responsibility. If there are errors...people who cannot defend themselves will not be singled out, and left hanging out there in front of the public.

Why has the Prime Minister allowed his health minister to hang his junior officials out to dry over the bungling in that health minister's own department?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I will chuck that one right back and say that the member has not really understood what has gone on this week.
What has gone on this week is that we have stood behind the officials who, in good faith, took steps to protect the public interest. We have stood behind officials and got the facts of what really happened. We have not allowed the big pharmaceutical company to bully our officials and pretend that they did not tell the truth.
We have defended them. We have done the right thing. We have also protected the health of Canadians and the government is proud that this is the case.
Airline IndustryMr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, against the recommendations of the Competition Bureau, Air Canada won a six month delay in a predatory pricing hearing brought forward by WestJet.
The tribunal bought into the monopoly's argument that the post-September 11 restructuring made it impossible for Air Canada to devote the time it needed to present its case. However, Air Canada had ample time to start its new discount airline, Tango, during that period.
Why is the minister determined to preserve Air Canada through stop-gap measures that will not solve the airline industry's long term competitive problems?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that Bill C-26, which was passed recently, provided for Competition Bureau powers to deal with predatory pricing.
Application was made to the tribunal after the findings of the commissioner. The tribunal has adjourned those proceedings, but that is a matter that is separate from the government. It is a quasi-judicial tribunal that will deal with the matter in its own time.
Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line to all this is that the Liberal government has consistently ignored the advice of its own competition commissioner on the airline issue.
The government's handling of the airline industry in Canada has been a dismal failure. Some of the casualties of Liberal incompetence are Canadian Airlines, Greyhound, Air Nova and RootsAir, and now it is having to prop up Canada 3000.
Why does the minister think that Canadians will not recognize that the $75 million bailout of Canada 3000 just sets the stage for the massive bailout to follow for Air Canada?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised. The Alliance Party, Reform as it then was, actually supported the government's policy. There were no divisions. In Bill C-26 we enacted the recommendations of the commissioner of competition, so I would ask the hon. member to get his facts straight.
With respect to the announcement I made last night with Canada 3000, is he telling Canadians that the government is wrong to give short term cash support to the number two airline to provide competition? Is that where the Alliance Party is?
National DefenceMs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the U.S. secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, expressed doubts that Osama bin Laden could ever be captured and described the campaign in Afghanistan as more difficult than expected.
Does the Minister of Defence share the doubts of his American counterpart?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, everything is being done to suppress terrorism. We do know that many of the terrorist activities in this world, including those of September 11, originate with al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Every effort is being made, in fact, to deal with that organization and to deal with its supporters in the Taliban. Every effort is being made to target them in Afghanistan and to not target the people of Afghanistan. That country and its people have long suffered. Indeed, what is needed is to continue with the efforts against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, in a context where more and more members of the public are questioning the present coalition strategy of strikes on Afghanistan and the impact on civilian populations, what are we to conclude from this message from the U.S. government, seemingly questioning its own strategy of bombarding Afghanistan?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, not every aspect of a strategy is going to be discussed publicly, obviously. We are not out to telegraph to Osama bin Laden and his supporters what the next strategy will be in dealing with him.
It has been said right from the beginning that this campaign will not be a short one and it will not at all be just a military one.
We are absolutely determined, and I know the Americans are absolutely determined, to bring about the suppression of the kind of threat from terrorism that their country, our country and other freedom loving countries in the world are experiencing.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, joint task force 2 is well trained for its role in domestic hostage rescue. Claiming that this unit is intended for a special forces role in overseas operations is a smokescreen intended to hide the fact that the Liberal government blundered in disbanding the Canadian airborne regiment in 1995.
The minister is needlessly putting the lives of Canadian soldiers at risk by stretching our limited resources to cover his mistakes.
Will he admit today that Canada needs and must have a unit like the Canadian airborne to carry on the international war against terrorism?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of nonsensical rhetoric.
The JTF2 will be involved in this endeavour. It is a well trained force. It has the equipment that is necessary to do the job. It is the equivalent of the organizations it will be working with from the United States, Britain and other allied countries.
I think we can be proud of what our forces can do. We should not run them down the way the Alliance runs them down. We should be supporting them.
Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, lest we forget the lessons of Somalia, knowing Canadian soldiers will be at risk if they are used in inappropriate roles overseas, all the government has learned so far is, when Canadian forces need help, to blame Canadian soldiers and dismantle army resources rather than fix the problems.
Canada, and indeed her allies, needs units like the Canadian airborne now more than ever. Will the minister commit today to giving Canada's military the frontline resources it needs and restore the Canadian airborne regiment to active service?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, no, we will not be restoring the Canadian airborne regiment, but the first part of her question was about resources.
The government has over the last three years provided $3 billion more in resources. The government has made it abundantly clear that for anything that we ask our Canadian forces to do, we will make sure they get the resources to do that job. We will not ask of them something that they are not trained to do. We will not ask of them something for which we do not give them the resources. The government will give them what is necessary to fight terrorism.
Tourism IndustryMs. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency commented on the economic impact of the September 11 events on the Atlantic region and its tourism markets in the northeastern U.S.
Can the minister responsible for the ACOA tell the House how this information will foster the adoption of future tourism promotion strategies that will benefit the Atlantic region?
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, every dog has his day.
Good agreements between ACOA and the Atlantic provinces are enabling us to minimize the negative effects of the events of September 11.
One excellent example of partnership is that of the Atlantic Canada tourist industry. This year, in conjunction with the Government of Canada, the Atlantic provinces and the tourist industry are investing $5 million to promote Atlantic Canada in the northeastern U.S.
I invite the Americans as well as all Canadians to come and visit the Atlantic region.
TerrorismMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last week the staff on Parliament Hill were issued high tech rubber gloves to open the mail. This five-fingered prophylactic is not a solution.
The United States surgeon general states that technology is available to develop equipment to sanitize and make mail safe from bacteria such as anthrax.
What is being done in Canada to procure this new equipment to protect our Canadian postal workers and postal customers? Is Canada Post now investing in mail sanitizing equipment?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for asking me this question at this time.
At this moment as we speak, the Canada Post president is in Boston meeting with American counterparts about postal administration and they are working together to address this problem.
The member will be surprised to hear that we will have the same equipment and same machinery as the Americans. We want to make sure that we protect all our postal workers and all Canadians.
Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, obviously there is a great concern for the safety of the mail system. Public confidence in the postal system is essential to the normal functioning of the economy and the lives of Canadians.
I believe that Canadian manufacturing technology can be brought to bear against this terrorist tool of war. Will the minister advise how and in what way Canadian industry is being encouraged to develop, produce and deliver this new technology?
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, right now we are facing an emergency situation and therefore we will collaborate with our neighbours and make sure that everyone is protected.
In the meantime, if Canadian industry also makes available Canadian manufactured tools that we can use, our objective is to make sure that our more than 50,000 postal employees are protected and all Canadians are protected. The Canada Post administration will do everything in its power to ensure that protection.
Guaranteed Income SupplementMr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we recently learned that over 380,000 Canadians are not receiving the guaranteed income supplement, even though they are eligible for it.
We are talking about millions of dollars that Human Resources Development Canada is literally stealing from the neediest members of our society.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development intend to eliminate the 11 month retroactivity threshold, so that elderly people will receive the money that is owed to them?
Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that the guaranteed income supplement issue is now being reviewed by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, on which I sit, and that we are almost ready to submit a report to the minister.
As soon as that report is in the hands of the minister, we will see how she will react to it.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the communal licence issued to the Burnt Church First Nation for the food, social and ceremonial fishery this fall expired at midnight last Saturday.
The expiry of the licence marks the end of a fishery that many Canadians anticipated with concern. Many aboriginals and non-aboriginals around Miramichi Bay wondered if the fall of 2001 would bring a repeat of the open conflicts of 1999 and 2000.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans report to the House on the state of affairs of the fisheries affected by the supreme court's Marshall decision?
Mr. Georges Farrah (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his good question.
We were very pleased to see that this year the situation in Burnt Church improved a lot.
As we know, fishing in Burnt Church has always been a relatively sensitive issue. This year, the permit for subsistence fishing that was delivered to that community allowed it to catch lobster, mostly, while complying with the regulations and the act.
However, there is still a lot of work to do, because we must reach a long term agreement with Burnt Church. We will work very hard during the winter to reach such an agreement with this aboriginal community.
Anti-terrorism LegislationMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the United Kingdom and the United States, the two key players in the war on terrorism, understand that enhanced police powers must be coupled with stronger checks and balances. Both countries have passed provisions for compensation of people whose property or whose person is arrested wrongfully through new anti-terrorism laws.
If the government will not allow for a sunset clause as a way to protect Canadian civil liberties, will it amend Bill C-36 to guarantee full financial compensation for any Canadian who may be wrongfully detained in the new anti-terrorism dragnet?
Stephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, there are well established rules in Canadian law for governments to be held civilly liable for mistaken actions by police or by prosecutors. Of course these civil remedies will always be available to Canadians who may have their rights infringed in any way by public authorities.
Pay EquityMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at last the federal court is going to hear the case of 6,000 public servants, mainly from the Office of the Auditor General, CSIS and the Health Research Institute, in connection with pay equity.
Yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board's reply suggested that she would be supporting the employers. Can she clarify her stand for us? Does she mean she will provide them with financial support for the legal proceedings or for pay equity?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it very clear yesterday. I said that the equity settlement applied some months ago was solely for employees whose employer was treasury board.
However, as far as the separate employers are concerned, if they are able to demonstrate that they have a pay equity problem within their organization, treasury board is prepared to support them and has, moreover, already done so in some cases. That is the context within which treasury board can intervene.
Patent LegislationMs. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the health minister said he has strong views when it comes to the multinational drug industry. Certainly this week he has shown he does not have much respect for the drug patent act.
It would certainly be nice to know if there is going to be more to the health minister's position than just tough talk. Would he end this difficult week for him by clearing the air and indicating to all Canadians, does he support the Mulroney drug patent act, yes or no?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I know it is Friday and the opposition is limping lamely toward the end of the week exhausted from five days of chasing its own tail. Even to those members it must be obvious that what the issue of this week has been about really is the protection of public health, will Canadians have access to what they need to be protected in these difficult and dangerous times.
It is clear also this government, this minister and Health Canada have acted to protect public health. We have what we need on good terms for Canadians. We will continue to do what we have been doing.
Coast GuardMr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, earlier today the solicitor general said “We have beefed up the coast guard by requiring them now to call in 96 hours in advance”. His own people, the people in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans responsible, will tell us the onus is on the captain to make the call. If a boat does not call we do not know it is in our waters because cutbacks have caused the coast guard to be almost eliminated, 20% coverage by radar.
Should not terrorists at least have to have a reservation confirmed before we let them into the country?
Georges Farrah: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, the decision taken by our government is to ensure that, in light of the present situation, vessels notify us 96 hours prior to arrival in Canadian waters instead of 24.
The same thing applies to the 96 hour notice as when it was 24. The coast guard works in close collaboration with Customs Canada, Transport Canada and the U.S. coast guard to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.

Routine Proceedings
Order in Council AppointmentsMr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.
Government Response to PetitionsJoe Jordan: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
Committees of the HouseMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has the honour to present its ninth report.
In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, October 2, your committee has considered Bill C-31, an act to amend the Export Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, and agreed on Thursday, October 25 to report it without amendment. A copy of the relevant minutes of proceedings for meetings numbers 33, 35 and 36 is tabled.
Joe Jordan: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 33rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of standing committees and of the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs.
Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 33rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there agreement?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Questions on the Order PaperJoe Jordan: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-34, an act to establish the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.
Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, having listened intently to the debate and the points made by a number of hon. members in the House, Bill C-34, the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada act, is a good bill and worthy of support. I conclude by asking all members to support the bill in the best interests of the country.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you were to seek it, the House would agree to call it 1.30 p.m. and to move on to private members' business.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Royal Prerogative of MercyWendy Lill: moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize and uphold, in its treatment of requests for the royal prerogative of mercy, the principle that the lives of all Canadians, including the lives of persons with disabilities, must be treated, and be perceived to be treated, equally under the law.

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to move Motion No. M-372 today for debate in the House. The motion asks cabinet to consider carefully the security of persons with disabilities when considering any request for the royal prerogative of mercy.
The motion has a threefold purpose: to provide an opportunity for parliamentarians to discuss an issue which is not yet in the public arena but will be imminently; to give cabinet direction on an issue important to millions of persons with disabilities; and to offer assurances to persons with disabilities and their families that their government is protecting their rights and their lives under the law.
What caused me to write this motion was the announcement last spring from the legal team for Robert Latimer that they would be requesting his early release for the second degree murder conviction of his daughter Tracy.
The Latimer case has achieved such a level of notoriety in Canada by now that I am not sure delving too deeply into the details will serve a great purpose. However I know the effect this crime has had on the thousands of persons with disabilities and their families.
Since that October morning almost eight years ago when Robert Latimer sat his 12 year old daughter Tracy in the cab of his truck, piped in carbon monoxide and gassed her to death, it would be fair to say that all persons with disabilities have been on a rollercoaster ride as they waited to see how the courts of the land would deal with the case.
Thousands of persons with disabilities and those who love them and care for them were watching and waiting as the Latimer case wound its way through the courts. They were waiting and holding their breath, holding their hearts really, to hear with what severity the highest court in the land would judge the murder of one of society's most vulnerable, because the severity of that judgment would send a clear message out to all Canadians about the seriousness of committing a crime against a person with a disability. So they waited and they held their breath.
I remember a witness who came before the disability subcommittee during that long period of waiting said “If Robert Latimer's crime goes unpunished, if it is okay for him to take his daughter's life, then it casts doubt about the meaning of my whole life, which is bound up in 24 hour caring for a severely disabled daughter, and it fills me with great fear”.
I heard from a woman with multiple disabilities who said “What if I have a bad day or a bad month or a bad year? Does that mean that my caregiver may decide that it is the compassionate thing to end it for me?”
These are horrible things to contemplate, yet they are always on the minds of people who are vulnerable. They are much concerned about the fact that it was the father who was getting all of the attention, not the daughter Tracy whose life had been taken.
The Canadian Association for Community Living published the book Our Lives, Our Voices: Families Talk About Lives Worth Living . As stated therein, the book was published because, “We are concerned that in the outpouring of support for mercy for Robert Latimer, there has been little attention to the court evidence about Tracy's joy for life. With a series of stories which families have shared, we wanted to help others to appreciate the value and love that we have for our children”.
In that book one father from Ontario said that the principal reason they are at odds with Robert Latimer is that he placed a lower value on his daughter's life because she was disabled. He had options that he did not pursue and chose to dispense with his daughter as he would a sick farm animal.
These are some of the comments that I have heard and read. They are deeply painful and fearful comments from members of the community of persons with disabilities as they awaited a decision to be handed down from the highest court of the land.
Lo and behold, on January 18, 2001 the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the conviction and minimum 10 year sentence for Robert Latimer for the murder of his daughter Tracy. By doing so, it made a very important statement about Tracy Latimer's equality under the law.
With its decision, the supreme court recognized that the charter of rights guarantees to every Canadian the right to life and security of the person and to equal protection under the law, regardless of mental or physical disability.
In its decision, the supreme court recognized that denunciation of unlawful conduct is one of the objectives of sentencing recognized in section 718 of the criminal code.
Denunciation becomes much more important in the consideration of sentencing in cases where there is a high degree of planning and premeditation and where the offence and the consequences are highly publicized so that like-minded people may well be deterred by severe sentences. This is particularly in so far as a victim is a vulnerable person with respect to AIDS, disability or other similar factors.
The minimum sentence of 10 years was upheld for Robert Latimer for taking the life of his daughter Tracy, but unfortunately this painful story does not seem to be over. Although a special request for clemency has not yet been filed, robertlatimer.com, the friends of the family website, has announced that an application for clemency will be coming in the near future.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is actively circulating a petition calling for the release of Robert Latimer under the royal prerogative of mercy section of the criminal code.
My motion today calls upon cabinet to think long and hard about granting any royal prerogative of mercy which will decrease the level of security of persons with disabilities. I believe the real message that cabinet would be sending if it reduces Latimer's sentence is that murdering a person with a disability is not as serious a crime, ergo persons with disabilities are not equal under the law.
We hear a lot about security right now. Security is a very emotionally charged word since the horrifying events of September 11. Do not misunderstand me. I believe we need to increase our airport and border security, but we seem to miss the point of what security means for many people with disabilities.
Security means having access to services, employment, housing and health care, knowing that they will not be blocked at every turn from doing the things that others can do. Security also means not being afraid of being reliant upon others for support, literally for life itself.
The biggest case around this form of security has been the public debate over the conviction of Robert Latimer for murdering his daughter Tracy. This is a case where the media has kept the focus on the criminal, not on the victim. There seems to be a feeling that the life of Tracy Latimer was worth less than our lives because she had a specific medical condition.
The suggestion from a trial judge in Saskatchewan was that the punishment should be two years instead of ten. That is about 20% of what a normal sentence should be. The judge tried to put into law an argument which could have become a precedent that the life of a person with a disability can be discounted like a T-shirt at Zellers on a sales day. I am thankful that the Supreme Court of Canada refused to allow that argument to stand.
The danger now, however, is that there is a movement which says that the trial judge got it right, that the supreme court got it wrong, and that cabinet should grant clemency to Robert Latimer. This movement is not small. As I have already said, it includes such organizations as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association which even has its own website extolling the virtues of a loving father.
I do not understand how an organization which uses the motto “The freedom of no one is safe unless the freedom of everyone is safe” does not understand the inherent danger in saying that there should be exceptions in our justice system available for “compassionate fathers who kill their daughters”.
It is not up to me to decide if Robert Latimer loved his daughter. It is not up to me to make a judgment of Tracy's medical condition. It is not up to me to retry any specific case that already has been before the courts. As a matter of fact, elected representatives are the last people who should be trying individual cases.
However as a parliamentarian it is up to me to uphold the law. It is our job as parliamentarians to tell the cabinet our opinion on how the law should be applied when it comes to the specific section of the criminal code dealing with mercy.
The law says that if one is convicted of second degree murder the sentence is life in prison with no chance of parole for 10 years. The law does not say unless one is a loving father, unless one's victim has a severe disability, unless one is a good farmer or unless one has good lawyers. As a matter of fact our law is quite devoid of loopholes for murder and I am thankful for that.
If clemency is to be used in the Latimer case, a message is sent to the thousands of caregivers, who vulnerable people rely on for their basic existence, that the consequences for unilaterally deciding to harm someone in a person's care will be different if it is believed it is in that person's best interest.
Our job today is to send a message out to the cabinet room that we should be ever mindful of the real and perceived security needs of people with disabilities, our neighbours who have to rely on others for their daily activities.
A colleague from this place recently asked me why I think that people with disabilities are not already considered fully in this context. I think the record speaks for itself. Our history, even our recent history, shows us that people with disabilities are most often the last considered and the first forgotten in matters of public policy.
We are a society that too often rewards the strong and the loud and forgets the weak and the vulnerable. That is why we in the House of Commons must be their voice. We must remember we had a physical sterilization of this community as a matter of public policy in parts of Canada as recently as 50 years ago.
We have seen recent cuts from the government to income support programs such as CPP disability, to provincial social assistance supports, to the construction of affordable and accessible housing, and to employment programs. The fear that they may be undervalued again, as I believe the Saskatchewan trial judge undervalued Tracy Latimer, is a well founded fear.
In closing, I ask members of the House to speak out in favour of this motion. We need to send Canadians with disabilities a message. We need to say that we have heard them and we will not apply laws that discounts their lives. We need to send a clear message to the cabinet that all Canadians are equal and that as a House of Commons we do not believe that the punishment for taking any life should be diminished because of the ability of the victim.
Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to speak to Motion No. 372 presented by the member for Dartmouth. As hon. members well know, our system of laws is generally intended to serve the common good and all individuals are treated equally before the law.
I also believe there are times when the application of law may lead to unintended or unanticipated consequences for an individual. This may result in the imposition of an undue hardship or an inequity out of proportion to the nature of the offence or of the sentence, for that matter.
It may also be that there exists no other legal remedy to redress such an inequality and inequity in that all legal avenues normally available have in fact been exhausted. When such a situation arises the individual may seek recourse in what is known as a royal prerogative of mercy or clemency.
The royal prerogative of mercy is little understood by the majority of Canadians. Indeed it may not be fully understood by some members of the House.
Historically the royal prerogative of mercy is the oldest form of redress or intervention to right a wrong or correct an injustice. It originates from the absolute power of monarchs, kings, queens and emperors to dispense justice or to exercise mercy. They could sentence someone to prison and they could shorten the sentence if it were considered too harsh. They could sentence someone to death and they could commute that death sentence at will.
Of course much has changed since the time of monarchs who ruled with unfettered power. Today justice is administered under what we know to be the rule of law. The exercise of unfettered authority has been replaced with a system of laws administered by an independent judiciary according to clearly defined procedures that ensure due process for all concerned. That is as it should be.
However, as I said at the outset, there may well be individual circumstances when the rule of law and due process result in unintended consequences and the individual has no recourse but to seek clemency under the royal prerogative of mercy.
In Canada the royal prerogative of mercy is exercised by the Governor General under letters patent which stipulate the powers of that office or the governor in council under the criminal code. The royal prerogative of mercy is not a single remedy. It is not a one size fits all. Rather it can take a number of different forms to address the unique circumstances of an individual.
This is important to understand because when most people think of the royal prerogative they envisage that it somehow implies an individual is exonerated from a guilty verdict and that the sentence imposed by the court is eradicated. That is only true in the case of what is known as a free pardon, which is the ultimate and most rarely granted of the remedies available.
A free pardon is extended only in those cases when it has been demonstrated that somebody is wrongfully convicted, but there is already provision in the criminal code to deal with people who are wrongfully convicted. They may appeal to the Attorney General of Canada for a new trial, for example, under section 690 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
There have been no cases in the past 20 years where a free pardon has been granted to an individual who was wrongfully convicted of a criminal code offence. Recourse has always and was always sought under section 690 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Another remedy available under the royal prerogative of mercy is a conditional pardon. It too can take different forms. It could, for example, result in the release of people from imprisonment earlier than would otherwise be allowed under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. However they would remain under sentence subject to the supervision and control of a parole officer.
Another form of conditional pardon could include a remission of the remainder of the sentence, which can only be granted by the Governor General, and the setting aside of the criminal record under the Criminal Records Act.
There have also been many instances where a judicial error or an anomaly in the administration of justice could only be addressed under the royal prerogative of mercy.
For example, it could happen that a court has no record or has lost a record of a fine having been paid thereby rendering an applicant ineligible for a pardon under the Criminal Records Act.
I would like to underline that clemency is granted only in exceptional circumstances and only in very deserving cases involving those who have been convicted of federal offences. It is an ultimate recourse when all other avenues have been exhausted.
It deals with the circumstances of an individual who was convicted and on whom a sentence was imposed, and determines whether that sentence resulted in an undue hardship that was not intended by either the legislators or the judiciary.
Consider also the case of an individual, sentenced to life for second degree murder, who is diagnosed as suffering from a serious disorder of the central nervous system, resulting in paralysis and impaired speech. The medical prognosis is poor and doctors unanimously recommend transfer to a chronic care facility.
Clemency might be granted in such a case because further incarceration may constitute a more severe hardship than would otherwise have been foreseen. It may be that the offender cannot be adequately cared for in a prison setting.
Clemency in such a case might take the form of a conditional pardon resulting in release from prison under the supervision of a parole officer. The guilty verdict still stands and the applicant continues to serve his or her sentence under conditions of parole supervision and monitoring in the community.
The royal prerogative of mercy is exercised according to general principles which have evolved over time and which are meant to ensure a fair and equitable process.
First, the independence of the judiciary must be respected in that there must be stronger and more specific grounds to recommend action that might counter a court's decision.
Second, the applicant must have exhausted all other avenues available under the criminal code or other pertinent legislation. The royal prerogative of mercy is not intended to replace that process.
Third, the royal prerogative of mercy is intended only for those exceptional cases in which consideration of justice, humanity and compassion override the normal administration of justice.
Fourth, and most important, there must be evidence of substantial injustice or undue hardship out of proportion to the nature of the offence or the intended consequence of a particular sanction. In assessing this, each application is strictly examined on its own merits.
Clemency will not be considered where the difficulty experienced by an individual applicant results from the normal consequences of the application of law. It is not a mechanism to review the merits of existing legislation or those of the judicial system in general.
The royal prerogative of mercy is used very sparingly. It is granted only in instances when there is evidence of undue hardship beyond the intended consequences of a sentence and only in cases where there is no other legal remedy. It is unfettered in that it can apply a remedy that is best suited to an individual circumstance.
The motion before us seeks the support of the members of the House for the principle that, in the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy, the lives of all Canadians must be treated and perceived to be treated equally under the law. The motion also underlines the fact that this should include the lives of persons with disabilities.
If we interpret the motion from the point of view of the applicant for clemency, I would submit that by its very nature the royal prerogative of mercy already focuses principally on the individual. It is concerned solely with the applicant, not with the circumstances of others, be they family members, friends or others in the community.
If the member's motion is aimed at the victim, then I would ask hon. members in the House to consider whether it is appropriate for us to place limits or qualifications on the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy. I would also ask whether indeed this House has the constitutional authority to impose such limits.
I hope my comments have shed some light on this very important matter. It is a matter of great interest to many Canadians. Clearly, I wanted to be able to outline some of the points that were raised in my speech because I consider them to be important with respect to the motion.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Dartmouth, for having brought the motion before the House. I understand it is an issue close to her heart.
It is sometimes difficult as an elected legislator to bring forward conscientious positions which may be morally right but which may not be politically right. She certainly has done so in this motion. I commend her for her principle and her courage in so doing.
The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize and uphold, in its treatment of requests for the royal prerogative of mercy, the principle that the lives of all Canadians, including the lives of persons with disabilities, must be treated, and be perceived to be treated, equally under the law.

It is quite clear that the motion implicitly addresses the particular situation of Robert Latimer who was convicted of killing his daughter Tracy and is serving a sentence of 10 years. It is also a general application. I do not mean to suggest that it would apply in that one case only. It is also a motion with general application and a principle that is extremely important.
I regret that apparently a majority of Canadians believe that Mr. Latimer should receive the royal prerogative of clemency and have his sentence curtailed by an executive order of the governor in council, by cabinet. I gather most Canadians believe this because they regard the actions of Mr. Latimer as somehow having been morally justified if not morally obligatory, that is to say, to have killed his severely disabled daughter.
I think what the member for Dartmouth seeks to do is to remind us, as parliamentarians and as Canadians citizens, that we cannot and must not make distinctions between human persons and their right to life. Therein lies the first principle, not just of the motion but of our entire legal system and, I would suggest, western civilization. That is to say, the sanctity of human life and the notion that the right to take life can only exist in self-defence, and that to take the life of individuals because of the circumstances of their life, be it their ethnicity, religion, age, social or economic condition or their physical and mental condition is to violate the very first premise upon which a society founded on the rule of law exists. That principle is the inviolable dignity of the human person.
The first words of our Constitution Act, 1982 read:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles which recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

That sentence, so often missed and misunderstood in our jurisprudence and in our public debates, is so central to this premise. What it says is that the rights which we possess, the rights of which the charter speaks, are not rights granted by the state, by a legislature or by a court, nor are they rights that can be abrogated by any of those institutions. Rather, these are rights that are inherent and inalienable in the human person. If they are inalienable, they are and must be granted by a creator.
No man, no parliament, no father, even a father in great emotional turmoil and confusion, has the right to suspend and to violate the inalienable dignity of the human person.
This principle perhaps was most beautifully articulated in the preamble to the American declaration of independence, which is a foundational document of modern liberal democracy, where Thomas Jefferson wrote that:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life--

Men and women have certain inalienable rights. They cannot be alienated by even a grieving father wishing, in his subjective mind, to put a handicapped daughter out of her misery.
While I can understand to some degree the anguish of some parents of severely disabled children, I also recognize the heroism of many more parents and adoptive parents of severely disabled children who exercise compassion every day, not through the ease of terminating the life of their child but through their compassion of giving themselves wholly to their children.
Compassion is a concept much misunderstood in our public discourse. Compassion does not mean feeling sorry for somebody. It quite literally means, in its etymological root, com-passion. Passion means to suffer with, not to suffer with a disabled person and take away the person's right to life.
The motion and the principle to which it speaks is critically important because, as the parliamentary secretary sort of dodged around, there is a large public movement to seek royal clemency for Mr. Latimer and people who may be in a similar circumstance in the future. Should this or a future cabinet bend to that political pressure, it will, I submit, undermine and unravel the very basis of our jurisprudence, our rule of law and our right to claim we are a civilized society.
At various times in history, individuals, politicians and jurors have sought to make qualitative distinctions between different categories of human beings and to assign to those different categories different degrees of rights.
What comes to mind of course is the infamous Dred Scott decision by the U.S. supreme court in 1857 wherein that court ascribed to African-Americans the status of only four-fifths of a human being and thereby denied them the inalienable rights about which the American declaration spoke.
In the century just passed, what John Paul II has referred to as the century of tears, we have seen one brutal, horrific example after another of state systems, most notoriously the Nazi system, which again made a qualitative distinction between different human beings based on arbitrary criteria, in that case race and religion.
When such distinctions are made, we unleash a juggernaut of violence against the innocent. That is what happened in an isolated example when Tracy Latimer was killed.
Let us not forget that the Nazi movement started its reign of terror and death, not with the execution of Jews in the Holocaust but rather with the eugenics program which sought to eliminate those who were deemed imperfect because of some condition of life, such as being mentally or physically disabled.
Josef Mengele and his evil peers did things to people in a way perhaps much more cold-bloodedly than what Robert Latimer did to his own daughter. They looked at human beings as not being human beings and decided they had the right to remove their dignity that God had granted them. That is a notion we cannot and must not ever accept.
I will close by submitting that we ought to pass the motion and direct the cabinet never to grant clemency to someone who has alienated the inviolable right to life of a person because of his or her mental or physical condition.
Grant McNally: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to join in the debate today. I want to, as did my colleague from Calgary, commend my colleague from Dartmouth for bringing forward this very important motion. She brings a very unique perspective to it, one that she is willing to stand up for strongly. I applaud her for that.
I, too, want to focus on the motion as it relates to the Latimer case, which is of course what much of the debate is focused on so far today.
I want to begin by reading a bit from the decision of the supreme court. I would point out that Mr. Latimer's actions were purposeful, with intent and with consequences. In part the supreme court said:

--Tracy could have been fed with a feeding tube into her stomach, an option that would have improved her nutrition and health, and that might also have allowed for more effective pain medication to be administered...The Latimers rejected the feeding-tube option as being intrusive and as representing the first step on a path to preserving Tracy's life artificially.
Tracy had a serious disability, but she was not terminally ill. Her doctors anticipated that she would have to undergo repeated surgeries, her breathing difficulties had increased, but her life was not in its final stages.
Tracy enjoyed music, bonfires, being with her family and the circus. She liked to play music on a radio, which she could use with a special button. Tracy could apparently recognize family members and she would express joy at seeing them. Tracy also loved being rocked gently by her parents.

Further on in the decision, the court stated:

The Latimers were told that this procedure would cause pain, and the doctors involved suggested that further surgery would be required in the future to relieve the pain emanating from various joints in Tracy's body. According to the appellant's wife, Laura Latimer, further surgery was perceived as mutilation. As a result, Robert Latimer formed the view that his daughter's life was not worth living.
In the weeks leading up to Tracy's death, the Latimers looked into the option of placing Tracy in a group home in North Battleford. She had lived there between July and October of 1993, just prior to her death, while her mother was pregnant. The Latimers applied to place Tracy in the home in October, but later concluded they were not interested in permanently placing her in that home at that time.

There are some things that get lost in the debate and one is Tracy's story. Much of the focus has been on Mr. Latimer and the discussion around whether or not it is fair for him to serve out his 10 year sentence and that this is an unreasonable sentence placed on him.
I would argue that we need to focus on Tracy, and those who would be in a similar situation if others made the same choice with their children. If an individual acts with wilful intent, premeditated, planned event, our laws state that that is clearly against and in violation of the laws of this land.
As others have said, we can understand the difficulties that the Latimers went through, and many other Canadians go through similar circumstances, but in the end, the act that was committed was an act of the will. It was wilfully done, with full knowledge of consequences that would be received after that action was taken.
I believe we would be setting a very dangerous precedent if the cabinet were to go ahead with the prerogative of mercy in this case, or others, in making a statement about the value of life. Either we believe that all life is equal and there is an inalienable right to life by all or we do not. There simply is no middle ground. We can argue that there is a middle ground, but really what we are talking about is a moral divide, a philosophy that would say that we must take into account all considerations, basically, a relativistic point of view that truth is relative and that there are no moral absolutes.
The other perspective is one of moral absolutes, that there is such a thing as right and wrong. That is the foundation of this debate and it will be played out in many different ways and many different examples given. However, at the end of the debate, that is the question we must answer. Was this action right or wrong? The courts determined the action was wrong and the law was applied.
Are we then to say that the message sent by the courts, as determined by the laws of the land, will be revoked later on? That sends a very disturbing message, particularly to families who are dealing with a similar circumstance, who have disabled children. It sends a very disturbing message to all disabled people.
It is my belief, and I am speaking for myself in this debate, that what Mr. Latimer did was wrong and that he needs to accept those consequences. We need to send that message, through the decision, that those who would take similar actions would receive the same kind of consequences. When a society devalues the life of one, the doors open to the devaluation of other people as well. When we open that door, it is a very hard door to close. We must send a message that all life is valuable and of the same value.
When we look at the debates around the quality of life, this must be in my opinion the focal point, that all life is equal and valuable regardless of the circumstances, some of which may be very painful and difficult circumstances for families or individuals to go through.
However what happens is the perspective can change. If we focus on what could be if the person were not disabled and lament about the mark that will never be reached because of the disability, we lose focus of the joy and the great things that can happen together as a family and as individuals. If we refocus on what we have rather than on what we do not have, our perspective changes.
I read some stories about parents and disabled children in a book that was given to me by my colleague from Dartmouth. It was very clear with the parents of disabled children, who came through that battle of expectations and realizations that a certain quality of life would not be achieved because of a particular disability, that the quality of life which was there was one that would be embraced and accepted. When that notion is embraced, the joy, the pain and the sorrow we all experience, and which is common to parents of disabled children and disabled people in general, is a human condition to all families.
In the debate today I would hope that we focus on that key issue, the value of human life and that we send a message to our constituents, the people of this land, that we do value life. Because we do value life, we would encourage the government not to send a conflicting message by allowing an individual who has committed this act to then receive the royal prerogative of mercy.
We have an opportunity, as leaders in the nation, to speak on the issue and I am sure we will have different opinions. In the end we must look at that fundamental question of the inalienable rights of each individual and the rights of all people in our country. Let us send the right message.
I close by congratulating my colleague from Dartmouth once again. I hope that we can send a strong message united together in this place on this motion.
Karen Kraft Sloan: Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to offer a few words in support of the motion. I thank the hon. member for Dartmouth for bringing this very important issue to the attention of the House.
I ask members to look at the motion. At the heart of it is the principle of the necessity that all Canadians, including those who have disabilities, be treated and be perceived to be treated equally under the law.
When I first read the motion I had to ask myself how we could consider ourselves as members of a civilized society unless we ensured the protection of all, especially those among us who need the greatest amount of care. Another question I had was how we as members of the House could say that we have a hierarchy of values, that we value some Canadians more than we value others.
We have tremendous sympathy for families and caregivers of individuals with severe disabilities. There are huge pressures on these families. I know of individuals in my riding of York North who have family members who have chronic disabilities or who are in a state of dealing with terminal cancer. People have had to give up their jobs to be in their homes to take care of their loved ones.
There are tremendous pressures within the family in dealing with different family members themselves. How does one deal with young children, pre-school age children when there is a parent or a spouse who has a severe disability? How does one take care of these people? The pressures are tremendous.
We have to be proactive. We have to provide support for these individuals. We have to ensure that respite care is available, that there are good supports in the community around social services and medical services. Home care is essential in delivering these services.
As the member for Dartmouth puts forward in her motion, it is for us to look through the eyes of the person with the disability. It is not just a matter of looking at the caregiver. It is not just looking at the father who stopped his child's life. We have to look at the challenges those individuals themselves face.
Life is extremely precious. It is not for others to decide when life is no longer worth living. Despite the hardships, despite the pain, despite the difficulties, it is up to the individuals themselves to make that decision.
As the member for Dartmouth and others in the House have said, this motion essentially deals with a particular issue which involved a child. I would ask members to remember that Tracy was an individual with a disability but she was also a child. I am wondering if something else is not at work here as well.
Children in our society are often voiceless. They do not have the right to vote because they are under the age of 18. It is often very difficult to hear their voices and their concerns in the policies that affect government and the things we do as a nation.
Children have rights. Some Canadians, in fact even some members of the House, reject the idea that children have rights. Certainly under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child these rights are clearly spelled out. Somehow the fact that children have rights themselves that are inherent in them because of who they are as people is seen as a challenge against the family itself.
I ask the House whether this case is before us not only because Tracy was a person with a disability but also because Tracy was a child.
Some very good points have been brought forward by members of the House. They are very important points. They speak to us as to the kind of society we are and the kind of society we want to have. They talk to the rule of law. They talk to the very basic principles of a civilized society.
I want to thank the member for Dartmouth very much for bringing forward the motion in the House today. She has provided a voice for Tracy Latimer, a voice that has in many cases been silenced.
Wendy Lill: Madam Speaker, it has been a wonderful debate. I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate and who has dug deeply into their own sense of justice and vulnerability and possibly their own experiences with persons with disabilities. They have been honest and caring. I would like to make some comments about what has been said and then read a bit more from a mother of a child very similar to Tracy Latimer in terms of her disabilities and maybe in terms of her joy for life.
The speaker for the government, the first speaker, talked about the various kinds of cases in which clemency may be brought about. I did not find any real comfort in that. I was not sure how he was instructing us in terms of this case, but he did make a point about the fact that he thought the motion was aimed mainly at the victim in this instance. I have to say that I believe the motion is aimed at the millions of people in the country who are suffering from a disability or who are looking after persons with disabilities. There is nothing particularly narrow about the motion. It really does reach out into the hearts of people everywhere.
I was happy with the comments from the member from Calgary on the concept that the general principle the motion is dealing with is extremely important and that is the sanctity of life. He quoted from the preamble to the American declaration of independence, which states “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men” and women “are created equal” with certain “unalienable rights”, including the right to life.
He also recognized the heroism of parents of children with disabilities. I have to say that I see it every day in the 24 hour care and the effort that goes into looking after children with disabilities. It is not of course something that people choose to do and possibly is not something that at age 20 they ever thought they would be doing or would ever choose, but the fact is it becomes their lives. Caring for our loved ones, whatever their level of ability, is the core of their lives and let us not think it is anything else. Our lives become a journey of taking care of what is required to look after the people we love. The idea of exercising that difficult compassion is the daily stuff of just doing it and just taking care of people.
I appreciated the comments of the member for Dewdney--Alouette in questioning what happens if others make choices for their children that would end their lives and what it does to the thousands of others who are trying to care for their children. Was the action right or wrong? The court determined that it was wrong. The Supreme Court of Canada finally said it was a case of second degree murder and the minimum sentence is 10 years.
As the member said, when society devalues one we open the door to devaluing many others. We need to send a strong message to constituents that we do value life and not send a conflicting message by granting the prerogative of mercy.
I appreciated the comments of the member for York North about the principle of treating all Canadians equally under the law. How can we, as members of the House, have a hierarchy of values for some? She mentioned the huge pressures on families who are in need of respite care, social services and home care and said that we have to be conscious of those things. She also mentioned the fact that children do have rights but asked if we are not sometimes forgetting them in light of many issues.
I will close with the words of a mother of a daughter who has a disability:

--we cannot lose sight of the fact that murders that are motivated by compassion, the victims almost in every case are vulnerable people--people who are sick, aged, or who have a disability. My daughter will decide when it is time for her to leave this earth--no one else has the right to make that decision for her or to take her life from her.

I appreciate all the comments I have heard in the House and the hundreds of people who have given us strength with their comments over the years on this issue. I believe we have given some very important instructions to the Government of Canada today.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Since the motion was not selected as a votable item, the item is dropped from the order paper.
It being 1.05 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.05 p.m.)