2001-11-02

Government Orders
Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2001Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Justice): 
moved that Bill C-40, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed, or otherwise ceased to have effect, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, as the House will know, this is a bill that corrects largely translation differences between French and English and English and French, as well as other technicalities. The amendments proposed by the committee have all been incorporated in the bill. Therefore I would like to seek unanimous consent for the following order. I move:

That Bill C-40 be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to a committee of the whole and reported without amendment, concurred in at the report stage, read a third time and passed.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons have the consent of the House to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Motion agreed to, bill deemed read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-33, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
Don Boudria: 
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

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

Mr. John Finlay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill at third reading because it is of very great importance to the people of Nunavut. It establishes the water board and land surface rights tribunal as institutions of public government. This is another step along the way from where the land agreements at Nunavut ended and where full territorial public government is envisaged.
The legislation is not new in that the bill contains provisions that mirror provisions of the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Yukon Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and other acts that have gradually devolved the ownership and responsibility for governance in the territories to the people of the territories.
The bill recognizes special rights for the Inuit concerning water in, on or flowing through their land as outlined in the agreement. It also prohibits the board from issuing, amending or renewing a water licence or a licence for the deposit of waste that may substantially affect the quality, quantity or flow of waters through Inuit owned land unless appropriate compensation for any adverse effects has been determined in advance.
The proposed bill complies with the other terms of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. It authorizes the board to approve all water use and deposits of waste in Nunavut. It provides that the Inuit nominate four members of the water board, which is half.
It requires that the Inuktitut language be used by the board when requested. It requires the board to give due regard to Inuit culture, customs and knowledge in designing its rules of procedure and in setting out the factors that the board must consider in determining appropriate compensation when an approved project or activity may substantially affect water quality, quantity or flow.
It establishes the following water management functions that were not covered by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement but were contained in the existing Northwest Territories Waters Act. For some years since the water board was established, these rules have been unclear and some difficulties in administration have appeared.
The bill indicates clearly the role of the minister and governor in council in licensing, in water planning, in the scope of conditions to be attached to any licence and who, other than the Inuit, is entitled to compensation.
It provides for inspection and enforcement. It provides a process for the appeal of licensing decisions. It should be noted that no additional resources are required to implement the above functions. They have all been carried out by the board in the interim.
The bill also recognizes that the water board must work closely with the Nunavut Planning Commission in the development of land use plans as they concern water. It must also liaise with the Nunavut Impact Review Board in assessing environmental and socioeconomic impacts of water related projects.
The hearings and operations of the board are open to the public for the registry of applications and written rulings are made available.
As I said at the beginning, this is a step forward in self-government for the territory of Nunavut. On behalf of the minister I want to thank the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources for dealing with the bill so expeditiously over the past two or three weeks.
I want to give credit to the chairperson of that committee and particularly to the hon. member for Nunavut who serves on that committee with a number of other hon. members. We are all pleased to present the bill at third reading and hope that it will have speedy passage through the House this morning.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Cariboo--Chilcotin to participate in the debate on Bill C-33, entitled the Nunavut waters and Nunavut surface rights tribunal act.
The bill is intended to implement provisions of the 1993 Nunavut land claims agreement relating to the management of waters and to the creation of a surface rights tribunal for the territory of Nunavut.
As a party, the Canadian Alliance has in the past clearly identified problems, mainly financial, with the creation of the territory of Nunavut. However, with Nunavut now underway, this is legislation that is overdue and it provides the legal framework for the Nunavut water board that has already been in existence for six years.
It is interesting that we often have policy being implemented well in advance of the legislation being provided by the House of Commons, not only with regard to Nunavut but I have heard tax lawyers complaining about the same thing with regard to tax policy.
At this point in time the bill is at third reading and will be passed shortly, almost six years late, but I suppose it is better late than never.
The Nunavut water board is to have similar powers as those vested in the Northwest Territories water board. The purpose of the board is to promote the conservation and utilization of water through a licensing system, as well as waste disposal. The board is prohibited from issuing, renewing or amending licences if there may be a substantial and detrimental effect on the quality, quantity or flow rate of water through Inuit owned land unless the applicant has struck a compensation agreement with the Inuit for loss or damage.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development still maintains the right to appoint and release board members and issue and rescind licences, as well as expropriate land. This is a scary thought. The power to appoint board members is a hallmark of the Liberals. They love this sort of thing. When in government, the Liberals always try to legislate for themselves the privilege of political pork-barrelling. Hopefully the good people of Nunavut will not stand for this power of the minister to be turned into a patronage appointment system.
It is my understanding that as a result of committee hearings recently completed on the bill, the legislation has been so amended that the minister has 45 days to approve or deny approval for the licences that I mentioned concerning the flow of water. The minister can also postpone a decision for 45 days. I hope the Liberal minister does not take advantage of this generous allotment of time to make decisions and have local communities suffer while waiting for a decision from Ottawa.
The Canadian Alliance, like its predecessor, the Reform Party, has always believed in smaller, leaner government. The bill transfers to the local government responsibilities which otherwise would be the purview of the federal bureaucracy. On this side of the House we support policy allowing local governments to make decisions on issues that are of a local nature.
We will continue to honour existing treaties and, since the legislation is necessary to provide a framework for an agreement already passed by parliament, we support it.
The Canadian Alliance has expressed concern over the financial cost and, in some cases, duplication of services that are involved in the establishment of Nunavut. Nunavut, which receives $580 million in annual transfer payments, was projecting a $12 million deficit for the fiscal year 2001-02 and was asking the federal government for more money. Federal transfer payments make up approximately 90% of the territorial budget. That amounts to about $25,000 per person living there.
There are many problems with the creation of Nunavut and the official opposition is concerned about these problems. We want to ensure that these matters are dealt with in a responsible manner. However we will be supporting Bill C-33.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate at third reading on Bill C-33. The NDP caucus has been quite supportive of the bill from its onset. We welcome the opportunity to lend our support to the very important issue of helping the newly formed territory of Nunavut take its independence and control over water management, land use and other associated issues.
Members of the New Democratic Party have followed the debate with great interest. We have followed it much farther back than when it was introduced in the House as Bill C-33. We note with interest that as long ago as 1996, in the 35th parliament, a similar bill was introduced, Bill C-51, which, unfortunately, died on the order paper. In the 36th parliament, Bill C-62 was introduced, which was largely the same in scope and content and sought to achieve the same goals, but it too died on the order paper. In other words, the people of Nunavut have been waiting patiently for a long time to see this bill finally come through all the stages of the House of Commons.
It is worth noting that the Nunavut land claims agreement called for land use, water and environmental assessment boards to be established as institutions of public government within two years of the ratification of the agreement. That was in June 1993. It is scandalous that nothing has happened.
The surface rights issues were to have a similar institution within six months of the June 1993 ratification. We are almost a decade late in implementing this important enabling legislation which essentially hands over to the Nunavut water board the jurisdiction to make important determinations as to the use of water and putting waste into water in the territory of Nunavut.
This is an issue that most people are able to relate to. In fact, ever since we have been putting codes of conduct on paper or codes of practice into writing, we have dealt with water rights. The Magna Carta in 1215 referred specifically to water rights and water use issues. It is something that every democracy and every free society has to wrestle with and has to establish because it is so critical. People downstream deserve the courtesy of fair treatment from those living upstream, and water being an essential commodity.
After working with the people of Nunavut, members of the NDP did try to move amendments at the committee stage. The people of Nunavut actually came to the committee and made compelling arguments for things they sought to achieve in the bill. The one improvement in the bill that I will point out, and which I readily concede is actually an improvement over Bill C-51 and Bill C-52, is that at least Bill C-33 contains a non-derogation clause. This is important. In anything dealing with aboriginal rights, a non-derogation clause has become standard practice, in that nothing in this newly signed agreement will derogate or in any way diminish rights that are inherent within the charter of rights and freedoms or the constitution. The inherent rights that aboriginal people enjoy cannot be signed away by any document.
However, we were critical, and it was one of our amendments, that the non-derogation clause that was chosen for Bill C-33 differs from other non-derogation clauses in recent aboriginal legislation. We were suspect, as were the people of Nunavut, as to why it varied. It was only natural for the Nunavut people to assume that this clause was deliberately changed for a specific purpose.
A person can be presumed to have intended the probable consequences of his or her actions but, by the same token, the government can be presumed to have intended something of the literal meaning of what they have put forward and chose to deviate.
We recommended that the non-derogation clause in Bill C-33 should state as follows:

Nothing in the bill should derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under the Constitution Act, 1982.

The amendment was simple and straightforward but unfortunately it did not succeed at committee.
We went further than a non-derogation clause. At committee stage, members of the NDP recommended that we go farther and put in a positive interpretation clause, not just a non-derogation clause but a positive interpretation clause so in the event of some ambiguity in the bill it would always be interpreted in the best possible light for aboriginal people. We felt that was important. It was a safety fallback position that would give some comfort to the people of Nunavut in the event the bill was challenged in the courts or in the event there were two points of view over a particular clause. The interpretation clause would give some guidance to arbitrators down the road to view the people of Nunavut in a more positive light. That too failed at committee stage and we were disappointed and critical of that.
We also point out that Bill C-33 is essentially a step toward self-government for Nunavut, for control and jurisdiction over its own land and water use. However, within the bill, the minister still has the right or the ultimate sign-off to any licences or permits that are granted within Nunavut. In other words, the Nunavut water board can issue a licence to Echo Bay Mines, or whatever the institution is that seeks a water licence, but it has to be signed off by the minister. In other words, Ottawa, the central federal government, still has the ultimate control, the right to veto anything the people of Nunavut do.
We suggested in an amendment that the powers of the minister under that section should sunset on the 10 year anniversary of the signing of the agreement, not the signing of this bill but the signing of the Nunavut land use agreement in June 1993. In other words, in June 2003 the powers of the minister would no longer exist and the people of Nunavut would make their own determination about their own land and water use in that territory. I thought that was a very reasonable amendment and I expected the support of my colleagues even on the other side, especially the member from Nunavut who sits on that committee. I thought she would have had a very real interest in seeing that step toward true self-government and true self-determination take place. That also failed as an amendment. We were trying to be reasonable and we did not succeed in any of these.
The last thing we sought to achieve in Bill C-33 we again failed to achieve. The Government of Canada can still levy a fee or a charge to any user of water in Nunavut. There are no exemptions to this. We moved an amendment that would have allowed the government to charge a permit or licence fee to Echo Bay Mines or any other user group, but we wanted to make sure it did not intend to charge the people of Nunavut for using water that flows through their own land. That is exactly what is contemplated in this agreement. If the people of Nunavut wanted to start a water bottling company as an economic development agency, they would have to pay a fee to Ottawa to use their own water. Is that self-government? Is that self-determination? Is that control over one's own resources and territory? That struck me as absurd.
You, Mr. Speaker, with a hockey background, would understand the analogy that was used at the committee. The people who came to the committee said that if they wanted to flood the hockey rink in their community they would have to pay a fee to Ottawa to pump the water out of their river to flood the ice so their kids could play hockey in a place where there is a great deal of ice and water. It struck us as absurd. On their behalf we moved what we thought was a very reasonable amendment to say that the Government of Canada could charge user fees, service fees or licence fees, except in water on, in, or flowing through Inuit owned land.
In other words, on crown property the government could absolutely charge whomever it wanted whatever it wanted. It could charge whatever the market would bear and ding people for all it could. However it should not charge the people who live there for the right to make a tray of ice cubes in their own fridge. That struck us as ridiculous. It did not succeed either.
We were frustrated at committee. As much as we wanted to support Bill C-33 and agreed with the tone, content and sentiments inherent in the bill, we were terribly frustrated that reason could not have prevailed in those few areas.
Having said that, we must now either move forward with a bill that is not everything the people wanted or delay and deny the people of Nunavut what they have been seeking for many years. Given that choice the NDP caucus will be voting in favour of Bill C-33 at this stage.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères--Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-33, the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, on behalf of my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques Cartier, who, unfortunately, cannot be here today.
This bill quite simply implements certain elements of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, reached between the territory of Nunavut and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada.
The bill before us today therefore completes the final aspects of this historic agreement. The treaty was ratified and implemented on July 9, 1993, through the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act.
The Bloc Quebecois' support for this bill is consistent with our party's long held attitude regarding self-government and the responsibilities of aboriginal communities.
It would be impossible for us to oppose the quick passage of this bill, since it corresponds to the expectations and objectives of the nations and communities involved.
However, I deplore the Liberal government's usual attitude, its systematic refusal to consider proposals for amendments from opposition parties.
Indeed, once again, at committee stage, the government rejected all requests from opposition members to amend this bill so as to improve it.
This shows the general contempt the government has for the House, since it even gags its own members. This pattern is unacceptable, particularly when the bill being reviewed seeks to improve the living conditions of aboriginal communities. This ill-suited and excessive partisanship is reflective of the narrow-mindedness and lack of vision of government members.
We could go on and on about this government's typical attitude and trickery, but we already know that nothing can change the deplorable way it has been using the legislative process for many years.
So, let us go back to the central issue. In 1996, a similar version of this bill was introduced, but was strongly condemned by Inuit of Nunavut-Tungavik, because it respected neither the letter nor the spirit of the treaty.
It seems that the current version of the bill is a more accurate reflection of the aspirations of the Inuit of Nunavut.
However, I do have some reservations that could not be thoroughly examined at committee stage regarding some provisions of the bill that do not, at first glance, seem to meet the true aspirations of the Inuit.
Also, I hope that this act will be implemented with some flexibility and a great deal of tact, as regards the power of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to appoint the members of the Nunavut Water Board.
Knowing the government's tendency to appoint to key positions people who, shall we say, are close to it, it will be important for the minister to keep in mind the fundamental objective of this legislation, which is first and foremost to protect the interests of the Inuit of Nunavut.
In this context, the Bloc Quebecois is pleased to support this bill at third reading, and we reiterate our desire to co-operate with the government to quickly meet the very legitimate governance aspirations of the Inuit of Nunavut.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-33 at third reading and to speak on behalf of my coalition colleague from Edmonton North who is our aboriginal affairs critic.
This issue has been a long time coming. The bill would put legislation into place to allow institutions to be set up in Nunavut to continue it on the road to proper self-government.
All along we have seen similar legislation being put in place in Yukon and NWT. Even though it is not perfect and other amendments should perhaps have been made, as some of my colleagues mentioned earlier, Bill C-33 is better than no legislation at all. It would benefit the people who live in the territory it is meant to apply to.
The purpose of the bill is to implement the obligations of the Nunavut land claims agreement which was passed in 1993. Specifically it outlines regulations for the operation of the Nunavut water board and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal including the Nunavut water board's inspection and enforcement powers. It would also clarify the jurisdictions of both the water board and the surface rights tribunal.
The bill is set up in two parts. The first part controls the Nunavut water board. The second part controls the Nunavut surface rights tribunal. The Nunavut water board has been operational since 1995. Seeing as this is 2001 it is absolutely time we caught up to the board. The legislation would allow the board to operate legally.
Under Bill C-33 the Nunavut water board would consist of nine members appointed by the minister. Half the members would be nominated by designated local Inuit organizations. A quarter of the members would be nominated by the territorial minister responsible for renewable resources or by other designated territorial ministers.
The issue is that the minister would still clearly appoint a quarter of the members with perhaps no consultation at all with the people who live in the area. The local Inuit group would get to put up only half the members. It would have been a more effective bill if all the people could have been appointed by local governing agencies in Nunavut and by the people who live in the area who are affected by the legislation.
The Nunavut water board would issue licences to individuals and organizations whose operations would impact on Nunavut's water resources including water use and waste deposit. However the board could not issue licences for applicants whose operations may have an adverse effect on the local environment until the applicant and affected parties agreed to a compensation package. This would involve accountability, adequate public knowledge and all the basic things we would find in similar legislation. The minister would have final approval for the licences.
The issue is that we are attempting to provide legislation for increased self-government in Nunavut. We have done the same thing in Yukon and NWT. Yet we are still allowing the minister of the crown in the federal government to have final say.
The second part of the legislation deals with the Nunavut surface rights tribunal. This has been in operation since 1996, but the legislation would establish the tribunal as required and promised by the Nunavut land claims agreement.
The tribunal would resolve disputes regarding subsurface rights, sand and gravel on Inuit owned land and loss to Inuit from damage to wildlife, oil spills, et cetera. It would establish the terms and conditions of right of access to Inuit owned lands and determine liability and compensation due to the Inuit in case of damage.
Another board would be set up consisting of a chairperson plus two to ten other members approved by the minister, two of whom must be resident in Nunavut. It seems there would constantly be an odd number of members on the tribunal, which raises some questions. Again the minister would have the final say.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Why?
Gerald Keddy: That is a good question and obviously it is one of the problems with this piece of legislation.
The point of the legislation is to give the local territorial government and the people who live in Nunavut control over their water and their subsurface and surface rights. Yet they would be constantly coming back to a minister of the crown in Ottawa, which quite frankly is a long way from the people who live in the north not only in geographical distance but in thought process.
A great example of that, to which I always refer when I speak about Nunavut, is that it takes as long to fly from Ottawa to Vancouver as it takes to fly from Ottawa to Iqaluit. That is a huge geographical distance. The people who live in the area should be the ones who set their own governance.
The pros of the legislation are that it would allow more self-government and more input from the people who live in the area. Bill C-33 would improve on previous legislation and allow for further governance by local people and Inuit groups who live in Nunavut. It would give them control, although not complete control, over one of the earth's most precious resources which is of course water.
Both boards would be subject to an annual audit although it would be a directive of the minister and the auditor general.
The legislation has cons as well. A negative point of Bill C-33 which I have already touched on is that it would allow for too much ministerial power. I cannot say it any simpler than that. The minister would appoint the boards and could dismiss members. I should preface my comments by noting that the minister would have to consult with local Inuit organizations. However he could still dismiss members.
The issuance, amendment, renewal and cancellation of licences would all be subject to approval of the minister. I hope the minister would see fit to follow the advice of legislative people and Inuit groups in Nunavut when taking these assessments into account.
Under the legislation the minister would have the right to override the direction of water board inspectors and the recommendations they may make for dealing with licence infractions.
The aboriginal affairs committee passed an amendment that would place a time limit within which the minister would have to respond regarding licences. The amendment stipulates that the minister must either return a decision to the Nunavut water board within 45 days or request an extension up to a maximum of another 45 days. If the minister has not returned a decision to the water board by that time the licence would be deemed approved.
We in our party supported the amendment. A similar amendment had been proposed by our PC/DR coalition member and aboriginal affairs critic from Edmonton North. Her amendment would have proposed a timeframe of 60 days. We were more than happy to support a timeframe of 45 days.
Certainly the recommendation of the coalition is that we would support this type of legislation. It would provide the necessary mechanisms to flesh out the obligations to the Nunavut land claims agreement and would be beneficial in the long run for the economic development of the north.
In conclusion, this is the type of legislation that the coalition has tended to support. It goes that extra step in bringing self-government and legislative powers to the north. It still has a bit too much federal government interference on the behalf of the minister and we hope that the minister would show a fair amount of discretion with that power and would tend to go along with recommendations made by the people who actually live in Nunavut.
Of course it is also our hope and sincere wish that this would be another step on the way to complete self-government for the people of Canada's Arctic. Not only Nunavut but also the Northwest Territories and Yukon should be constantly on their way to becoming provinces and full partners in the Canadian federation even though they have huge geographic land masses and low numbers of people. That is certainly the direction in which we would expect the legislation to evolve.
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-33. I appreciate having the opportunity to present my thoughts and the thoughts of the PC/DRC coalition to parliament.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for South Shore. I was just about to say southern shore, that great part of Newfoundland, the hotbed of hockey where you would feel very comfortable yourself, Mr. Speaker.
However I have a couple of questions for the member. First, he talks about subsurface rights. I wonder what provision is made for the people of the area, the natives in particular, to have first right to all benefits coming from the exploration, development and processing of minerals found within the respective areas. Second, I wonder if any mention is made of the subsurface rights applying to the waters adjacent to the coast.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, part of the issue that we take with this legislation is that in my opinion it is not clear on subsurface rights. It certainly does not have the same type of context that we had in either the Canada-Newfoundland or Canada-Nova Scotia offshore agreements. More clarity is obviously needed in that respect.
I noted with interest that the hon. member mentioned that the southern shore of Newfoundland is a hotbed of hockey. Certainly one of the things he might be interested in is the fact that hockey is a very intensely played game in Nunavut and all over Canada's north. It would be an adventure, perhaps, to see the players on the southern shore of Newfoundland challenge some of the players in the north. It would be a long way to travel to lose a game of hockey, but I suggest that he might want to try that.
The issue of subsurface rights was part of the hon. member's question. Subsurface rights are fairly well described in this legislation in regard to the Nunavut land claims areas. There is no guarantee that the federal government gives the local government first option on subsurface rights outside of the land claims areas as far as my definition of the bill goes. It absolutely needs greater clarity and we will be revisiting that aspect of the bill.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for South Shore. He did not have the opportunity to be the representative for his coalition at the committee when it dealt with the clause by clause amendments, but he did hear the speech I made in which I pointed out some of the amendments that the NDP sought to achieve.
The hockey analogy that I used in my speech was the fact that under Bill C-33 the federal government still would retain the ability to charge a fee, a user fee, a licence fee or a permit fee, to any user of water in the territory of Nunavut. We sought to have an exemption to that rule which would state that the federal government could charge a user fee or licence fee to any user of water except in regard to waters that flow through Inuit owned land. In other words, the actual indigenous people of the territory should not be charged a fee for using their own water.
The witness who appeared before the committee used the example of wanting to pump water out of the river to flood the ice rink so his kids could play hockey. Under the bill, the government could charge him a fee for using his own water. We did not feel that was right.
Does the hon. member agree that is an amendment that should have been allowed at committee to give them true self-determination over their own water resources?
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, without having been at committee to listen to all of the argument it is difficult to respond, but I will respond to the member's direct question.
It would seem that the government has once again, in pursuing legislation, just simply ignored some amendments that certainly would have improved the legislation and allowed for more self-government.
As far as charging a fee for water is concerned, the area of Nunavut is still a territory although we may not completely support that and would expect that it would move toward further and greater self-government and actually to complete responsibility for its own area. However, as long as it is a territory the minister would have to sign and it makes absolutely no sense that the minister would have final authority for water on Nunavut owned lands. The whole principle behind the evolution of responsibility and devolution of power is to actually give power to Inuit organizations, to first nations.
A good example of that for the hon. member is Bill C-49, which we passed in this House. It gave greater power and full control of land and the resources on it to first nations on reserves in southern Canada. There were 14 first nations in the original group in Bill C-49 when we passed that legislation. For the first time it gave those first nations full control of land use on reserves.
Many Canadians thought that first nations already had full control of land use on reserves, but they absolutely did not. They needed a permit from the minister if they were to cut logs, cut firewood, dig a well, put in a septic system, gravel a road, build a road or even start a gravel pit.
This is good legislation. It is legislation that is needed, but it is certainly not the end of the road for this piece of legislation or any other. It is not untypical of a lot of legislation that the government brings in. It goes partway but it really does not finish the job.
I hope those comments are satisfactory to the member.
The Deputy Speaker: Before resuming debate, and I say this with the greatest respect, I do not know if it is the case in the area of South Shore, but it has been said that in parts of the country people take their hockey so seriously and play with such intensity that even the fans wear helmets.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House at third reading of Bill C-33, the Nunavut waters and Nunavut surface rights tribunal act.
The Nunavut land claims agreement and the creation of this new territory have resulted in more opportunities for employment, new business and social development and for protecting the ways of the past in the eastern Arctic for the Inuit community.
Frankly, however, for us to fully realize this potential the people of Nunavut as well as others who might invest there do need to have a greater level of certainty than currently exists. The bill would provide that level of certainty and in fact would go a long way toward establishing that certainty by providing an important mechanism in the legislative and regulatory framework that is very much needed in the territories.
The bill would establish in statute the powers, duties and functions of the Nunavut water board and Nunavut surface rights tribunal. These institutions of public administration arise out of the Nunavut land claims agreement, but their powers and authorities will extend across the territory to ensure uniformity and certainty throughout Nunavut on issues related to resource management.
Therefore I can say that certainty is the single most important outcome of Bill C-33. I say that because by providing the legislative underpinning for the Nunavut water board and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal, Bill C-33 would in fact provide certainty that decisions made by these institutions have a solid basis in law. This is not currently the case and has been the cause of some concern among members of these bodies and those who are subject to their decisions.
The bill would provide certainty for the industry by setting out clear ground rules for the issuing of water licences and the enforcement of licence conditions and by ensuring that resource developers have access to land for the purpose of exercising their subsurface rights.
Certainty and consistency are absolutely essential to support the economic development in Nunavut. In the case of the resource industry in particular, projects simply do not go forward unless developers are certain about their rights and obligations. This message was heard loud and clear when Bill C-33 was before the committee for review. Witnesses made it very clear that they find it unsettling to work with licensing boards whose legislative underpinnings are unstable.
By establishing the legislative framework for water management and surface rights in Nunavut, Bill C-33 would provide certainty that will pave the way for the new territory to take advantage of its resource development potential.
To that extent, I believe the bill is very much needed and it is my hope that the House will pass it as quickly as possible so the Nunavut people can get on with their lives and do the necessary things to create jobs, to respond to the needs of their communities and to live the quality of life that they so very much deserve.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Karetak-Lindell): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Karetak-Lindell): I declare the motion carried.
Thank you very much for passing the bill.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

Statements By Members
Religious OrganizationsPhilip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, the government's religious policy is Marxist. The latest assault on religion is forcing a 30% liability on four Canadian churches for damages caused 100% by the failure of the federal government Indian residential schools policy.
The government shut up the voice of Christianity at the Swissair memorial service. It prevented prayers at the service for the victims of the September 11 attack. The Liberals do everything they can to prevent the worship of God.
Historically churches built many of our hospitals and schools. They set up charities and provided social services. That is why the government co-opted them to help with these schools. Now the government does not care about the damage it causes Canadian churches and the services they provide.
The federal government forced aboriginal children to go to these schools for a century and then failed them and the churches with minimal support. It delayed the settlement for abuse claims for many years. Then it delayed the court cases by dragging the churches into lawsuits.
These churches will pay their fair share as far as the government is concerned, even if it kills them in the process.
Solange Chaput-RollandMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull--Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with the death of Solange Chaput-Rolland at the age of 82, Canada has lost a great woman.
Mrs. Chaput-Rolland lived her life with a passion. She was very interested in public affairs and was a journalist, an MNA, a senator and an author.
She came to our attention through her involvement in the periodical Point de vue , as a member of the Pépin-Robarts Commission on Canadian Unity, and as a writer of the television series Monsieur le ministre .
Solange Chaput-Rolland was deeply attached to Quebec and to Canada.
Because of her commitment and her outstanding achievements, she was appointed an officer of the Order of Canada and of the Ordre national du Québec.
Her contribution to the development of Canada was remarkable. She deserves our complete respect.
I wish to offer my condolences to the family of Solange Chaput-Rolland and to all the Quebecers and Canadians who mourn her passing.
MulticulturalismMr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year is the United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations. The purpose is to seek ways in which different cultures and civilizations can communicate more effectively with one another. This cross-cultural understanding leads to acceptance and co-operation and is fundamental in the achievement of peace in our increasingly global society.
The goal is to go beyond mere knowledge of one another and encourage true interaction between civilizations. This is particularly important in conflict regions around the world but resonates everywhere. We all share the quest for a world in which cultural diversity is celebrated. A respect for human rights and freedoms is fundamental to achieving intercultural understanding.
I encourage all Canadians to take a moment to reflect on the ways in which we can encourage sharing between cultures, religions and ethnicities. It is vital particularly at this time that we seek understanding and acceptance of people from different communities both at a national level and in our personal lives.
Down's SyndromeMr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, November 1 to November 7 is Down's Syndrome Awareness Week. The Canadian Down Syndrome Society and its affiliates will celebrate this week through fundraising and public awareness events. The purpose of this campaign is to raise the level of understanding of persons with Down's syndrome and to acknowledge the positive contributions they make to society.
Down's syndrome is a genetic condition that affects about one in seven hundred live births. Each individual is unique, with varying abilities and talents. With the right support individuals with Down's syndrome are capable of achieving a great deal. This week marks a celebration of their personal triumphs.
Often people with Down's syndrome must overcome social and personal barriers in order to realize their goals. Through our understanding, encouragement and inclusiveness we can do much to remove such barriers. I call on all Canadians to join in the celebrations this week.
Michael McCabeMs. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week in Ottawa the Canadian Association of Broadcasters celebrated its 75th anniversary at its annual convention “Broadcasting 2001: Connecting Canadians, Community, Country”. During the convention outgoing president and CEO Michael McCabe was inducted into the Broadcast Hall of Fame.
Michael has been an important part of Canada's private broadcasting scene for more than a decade. Throughout his 13 year tenure he nurtured the growth and evolution of private broadcasters. Through his leadership he has built consensus in a very competitive industry. We offer Michael our congratulations.
Operation ApolloMr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the war on terrorism has touched all of our lives. On Monday, October 29, the HMCS Vancouver sailed out of my home port of Esquimalt. As the member of parliament representing the sailors and their families who call Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca home I have known these brave men and women for more than eight years.
We thank the individuals and the civilian support staff who train and work day in and day out, usually in silence and without fanfare, to make Canada and the world a safer place.
These individuals, like many others across our great land, are willing to put their lives in harm's way so we can have a safer world. Their bravery and courage is a beacon to all Canadians in this time of crisis.
On behalf of the House I wish the sailors and their families a successful journey but above all a safe journey that will bring them home alive and soon.
Aluminum IndustryMr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first aluminum was cast in Canada 100 years ago.
The first aluminum smelter was built in Shawinigan. Since then, the aluminum industry has grown considerably. It is based primarily in Quebec.
Canada does not have any deposits of bauxite, which is the primary raw material used in the production of aluminum. However, it has large hydroelectric installations which are favourable to the development of this industry, in addition to skilled labour and modern infrastructures.
Canada is one of the world's largest producers of aluminum. Clearly, this industry contributes to the economic wealth of our country. In addition to a large volume of exports, it provides over 15,000 direct and 6,000 indirect jobs.
In commemoration of this anniversary, the Prime Minister took part yesterday in the inauguration of Place Alcan and the unveiling of the wall of employees' signatures in Shawinigan. I join with him in congratulating the entire aluminum industry.
Cable Public Affairs ChannelMr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since 1992 the Cable Public Affairs Channel, or CPAC, has made it possible for the public to follow the debates of the House of Commons.
Since it has a public mandate, CPAC's licence includes a requirement to reflect the linguistic duality of Canada, to present a balance between the various points of view and to represent the variety of regional opinions.
Even though 8.6 million homes can receive this channel, many communities in which there are sizeable French language minorities do not yet have access to CPAC programming in French.
As well, CPAC recently stopped the simultaneous interpretation of its prime time programming. Hence, production and distribution of its programming is therefore essentially in English.
The Bloc Quebecois demands that distribution of the CPAC service be regulated by the CRTC in order to ensure equality of access in both official languages.
Canada Institutes of Health ResearchMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, AIDS is an epidemic that knows no borders and affects millions of people throughout the world.
Unfortunately, no fully effective weapons against this terrible scourge have yet been found.
The OPTIMA study, a three year international clinical trial program mobilizing researchers funded jointly by Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom, will help us find responses to one difficult question.
Why do so-called drug cocktails halt the development of AIDS in some people and not in others?
The Canadian team is composed of Dr. William Cameron, chief researcher; Dr. Joël Singer, the trial statistician; and Aslam Anis, health economist.
I am proud to belong to a government that had the foresight to create an organization like the CIHR and to encourage international collaboration such as this.
Investing in research today stands to benefit all Canadians tomorrow.
TerrorismMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Middle East crisis calls for a balanced approach. Terrorism in any form should be condemned. While timely, the trip to the Middle East by the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not produce many results.
Israel has a right to protect its citizens but the same rights also apply to Palestine. Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain said:

--no matter what the cause is, no matter how passionately people believe in a cause, nothing can justify killing thousands of people in cold blood in New York or anywhere else in the world.

We cannot justify through the Palestinian cause what happened in America. We must address the problems and the injustices in the Palestinian region. We must encourage the revival of peace talks and bolster support for the international coalition against terrorism.
The official opposition calls for a truce and for negotiations on both sides to end the unnecessary killing of civilians everywhere. All countries including Israel and the Palestinian authority have an obligation to their citizens to negotiate peace. Peace must prevail at this crucial time when the world is engaged in a war against terrorism.
World War IIMr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week in Belgium a Canadian delegation attended the burial of two second world war soldiers, Private Charles Joseph Beaudry and Private George Robert Barritt. It was a moving event. These two young soldiers who gave their lives for Canada will finally lie with their comrades in arms.
Private Beaudry was from Dalhousie, a small town in northern New Brunswick. Private Barritt was from Runciman, Saskatchewan. These two young Canadians were brought together in terrible circumstances and are now laid to rest with all the honours that were due.
It is fitting as we prepare for Veterans Week 2001 to remember them and all those who sacrificed so much that we may live in peace and freedom.
We are greatly in their debt, and our country is better and more just because of the sacrifice they made.
The EconomyPat Martin: Mr. Speaker, the 1990s will surely go down in history as the decade of corporate greed. Executive pay jumped 570% between 1990 and 2000 for the CEOs of Standard &amp; Poor's top 500 companies. The explosion of CEO pay over the decade dwarfed the 37% growth in workers' pay.
According to Business Week CEO pay now stands at 531 times the pay of the average worker. If the average annual pay for production workers had grown at the same rate since 1990 their average salary would be $170,000 a year. The minimum wage would be $35 an hour.
When productivity goes up and profits go up, workers' wages are supposed to go up. That was the deal. That was the post-war labour accord. Capital has broken that compact and in their frenzy of wretched excess corporate executives have left any semblance of compensation fairness behind.
Employment InsuranceMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once again the Liberals have reneged on one of their many election promises. This time, however, the cost will be borne by the unemployed.
After grand promises that they would change the employment insurance plan, the Liberals quickly forgot what they had promised.
Recently, the Minister of Human Resources Development responded to the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, which advocated greater flexibility for the self-employed and for older and seasonal workers. The minister has not acted on a single one of the 17 recommendations.
With surpluses of nearly $40 billion in the employment insurance fund, the Liberals could have acted on all of the committee's recommendations. It is easy to manage a program when you do not spend the money on what it was collected for.
The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development are happy to steal from the country's unemployed and turn a cold shoulder to their problems.
More dead end election promises.
Reuven BulkaMac Harb: Mr. Speaker, Rabbi Dr. Reuven Bulka recently became the first ever recipient of the Scouts Canada National Salute Award. This prestigious award was created to honour business and community leaders who exemplify scouting principles of character and leadership in their daily lives.
As a model citizen, spiritual leader and humanist Rabbi Bulka is the epitome of this award. Whether it be the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, the Kidney Foundation of Canada or the United Way, no cause is too small or too great for Rabbi Bulka.
After the tragic events of September 11 when people of all faiths lost their lives in a senseless act of violence I recall Rabbi Bulka praying for tolerance, understanding and love for one another.
Peace building requires leadership at every level of society. It requires positive and constructive energy. At the heart of every nation lie people of strength and conviction, so we are truly blessed to have Rabbi Bulka in our community.
St. John's Anglican ChurchGerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a devastating fire in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, destroyed St. John's Anglican Church, the second oldest Anglican church in North America, a provincial heritage property and a national historic site.
It started in 1754 when the church's oak frame was brought from Boston. The church was built over a period of nine years by shipwright carpenters. An integral part of Lunenburg, St. John's was well known for its nativity scenes at Christmas and its 10 bells that rang daily at 2 p.m. It was also the burial site for some of the earliest settlers in the area.
I commend Lunenburg Fire Chief Terry Conrad and firefighters who battled the blaze. Although unable to save the structure, firefighters, church members and area residents managed to remove the hand carved altar and other artifacts.
Today our thoughts go out to church rector Reverend Irving Letto and Lunenburg residents. They as well as all Canadians have lost an important part of our heritage.
Remembrance DayMr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, few symbols carry as much meaning and emotion as the scarlet poppy. Since November 1921, Canadians have been wearing the poppy as a symbol of their remembrance of the sacrifice Canada made for peace.
Poppies are our way of paying tribute to the men and women who lost their lives in wars and in peacekeeping missions.
Throughout the world, countries and legions have adopted the poppy as the symbol of remembrance.
Each year the Royal Canadian Legion poppy campaign provides over 13 million poppies to Canadians. The money raised from donations helps to provide immediate assistance to ex-service men and women in need, often including food, shelter or medical support for them and their families.
I call upon all Canadians to show their support for those who have fallen by wearing a poppy.
Christian HeritageMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the present leadership of this country consistently disregards our Christian heritage. Indeed it is that Christian heritage that has protected the rights of minorities in Canada and gives Canadians the right to believe as they choose, unlike the situation which exists for so many people in other areas of the world.
Even today, Christian organizations work around the world to bring tolerance and to improve the lives of people who are less fortunate than themselves. A good example is Samaritan's Purse that has just held its annual Operation Christmas Child Shoebox program on Parliament Hill.
For some reason the government seems determined to disconnect Canadians from both the heritage and the present faith of so many Canadians. The pattern is consistent: the Swissair memorial service where it was forbidden to mention the name of Jesus Christ; the September 11 memorial service where the only mention of God was in the national anthem; the recent demand that churches turn their mortgages over to the government; and now the government's weak response to the burning of the church in Lunenburg.
The present leadership supposedly rejects intolerance. Why would it demonstrate it in such an important area?

Oral Question Period
Anti-Terrorism LegislationMr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice finally is saying that she is willing to amend some of the more glaring problems with the legislation she is bringing in.
Some people are saying the legislation goes too far. Some are saying it does not go far enough. Our security forces desperately need a provision which the minister refuses to put in; that is the provision to extradite those who are in Canada who have been charged or convicted with terrorist offences.
Will the minister change the legislation so that we can extradite those who are here for the wrong purposes? They must be extradited.
Mr. Stephen Owen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have provisions now in the Immigration Act, section 40, which allow for the deportation and removal of people who have been suspected of terrorist activities. We have mutual legal assistance treaties with many countries. We have extradition treaties with many countries.
Bill C-36 also addresses the issue of people who facilitate terrorist activity as described. These people can be detained and they can be extradited or deported in the appropriate circumstances.
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, that just is not accurate. There are no extra provisions for extradition.
One thing that fugitive criminals can count on when they arrive in Canada is that the federal Liberals will be there to protect them. It is time we put more emphasis on the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Will the minister stand and say that new provisions will be in place so that those who are convicted or charged with terrorist activities can be extradited to those countries where they have to face those charges?
Stephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 allows the Government of Canada to implement more than 12 international conventions dealing with terrorism. Many of those provisions allow for extraterritorial charges to be laid and proceeded with in Canada, but also provide obligations for extradition where appropriate.
Stockwell Day: This is extraordinary, Mr. Speaker. If the government is prepared to amend its anti-terrorism legislation, it must provide our police forces with the tools they require to combat terrorism.
Unlike the U.S. and the U.K. legislation, this one does not make it illegal to belong to a terrorist organization.
Will the minister amend her legislation in order to ensure that belonging to a terrorist organization is considered a criminal offence?
Stephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 provides for the offence of terrorist activity which is broadly described to include facilitating, participating in, financing or directing terrorist activities.
The decision not to ban membership of groups is to overcome a major legal difficulty of proving membership. It also can have constitutional implications. The way of targeting anyone who takes part in terrorist activity or facilitates, participates in, finances or leads it is a much more effective way of catching those who are responsible.
Softwood LumberStockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, not only is the government not doing enough to combat terrorism on other shores and here, it is not doing enough to protect jobs in Canada. Incredibly, we heard the government response yesterday, not just to its inaction on the softwood file, but to British Columbians losing their jobs. The junior minister called them nervous nellies because they were losing their jobs and their families were losing their livelihood.
A member of the B.C. trade council said that he would ask the minister to stand in front of the communities that are flat on their back and tell them how they are a bunch of nervous nellies.
Has the Prime Minister asked that the junior minister stand publicly and apologize to the British Columbians he insulted because they are losing their jobs because of the government's inaction?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I sincerely regret that that one phrase I used yesterday has led inadvertently to the interpretation that I am somehow insensitive to the serious situation faced by our lumber industry, by lumber workers and by their communities. In no way did I intend to make light of this very serious situation.
That is why I call on all those involved to maintain a united front, so that we can fight for free trade and fair trade in softwood lumber. I regret any remarks that may have caused others serious consideration.
Stockwell Day: That is one of the poorest non-apologies we have ever heard, Mr. Speaker.
The parliamentary secretary also indicated yesterday that the Americans are using softwood lumber to move other issues along.
He said that President Bush needs to make some progress in other areas in order to calm down congress.
Is the government admitting that its inaction in creating a North American security perimeter is holding up settlement of the softwood lumber issue?
Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed refreshing to see the Leader of the Opposition engaged with this very serious situation, when in the spring he went weeks without even appointing a trade critic. It is nice to finally see his interest now.
The reality is the government has a two track policy on this important issue. We filed our legal avenue at the WTO on October 25. The minister and the Prime Minister are engaged in this issue very seriously. The Prime Minister raised it personally with President Bush as recently as the APEC meeting last week.
The EconomyMs. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the state of the economy is becoming increasingly clear.
The dollar is reaching new lows, unemployment is on the rise, and the Americans' recent decision on softwood lumber is putting 130,000 jobs at risk, 40,000 of which are in Quebec. In short, the economic slowdown is more than just a vague threat, it has become an unfortunate reality.
Will the government give some indication of whether it intends to act on the strong warning given it by some economists, who are critical of the government's practice of basing its strategy for economic recovery on low interest rates alone?
Mr. John McCallum (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should know that the federal government has already injected over $20 billion, in terms of tax cuts and increased spending, into the field of health care. Twenty billion dollars is the equivalent of $200 billion in the states.
So, it is not just lower interest rates, but a very significant injection of funds into the economy in addition to low interest rates that will help the Canadian economy in these troubled times.
Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing the economists to discover whether they agree with this new finance minister, because, as the Bloc Quebecois has already done, the economists are now criticizing the federal government's lack of initiative and inaction.
Will the government finally face the facts and acknowledge that the best way to fight the ever growing economic slowdown is to include a bold and detailed plan in the next budget to revive the economy.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Quebec finance minister on her budget yesterday, which added another $3 billion.
Governments in Canada must all work together in these difficult times. If we include the funds injected yesterday by Quebec and the $20 billion already added by the federal government over the past year, these measures together will give the Canadian economy a considerable boost.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary just stated, Quebecers have shown, by the statement by their minister of finance, that they are determined and they have decided to take action to fight the downturn in the economy. While she did not have much room to maneouvre, Quebec's minister of finance did not hesitate to act.
What, then, is the federal Minister of Finance waiting for to present his plan, when he has considerably more leeway than Quebec?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, as the member must know, we have already announced a budget for December. We had to wait until the most recent information and the figures on the third quarter were available, toward the end of this month.
Once he sees all of this information, the member will see that we will have brought down a budget that will help the Canadian economy.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary must know that there are immediate needs, which require an immediate plan.
The government's action could have an incalculable effect on the efforts being made by the provinces to buffer the economic downturn.
What is the government waiting for to put some of its massive fiscal margin to work for Quebecers?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, this massive fiscal margin is all in the imagination of the Bloc Quebecois' finance critic. He is always talking about a surplus of $13 billion. He seems to think that he is right, and that all of the other economists are wrong.
The fact is that the federal surplus is much less than what the Bloc Quebecois claims.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting prime minister. The unemployment rate has now climbed to 7.3%. More than 26,000 people lost full time jobs in the month of October alone. Net job losses this year are now more than 75,000 across the country. Then yesterday the Canadian dollar, for the second day in a row, hit an all time low.
In light of that, will the government bring in a stimulus budget with major public investment in areas such as housing, transportation, municipal infrastructure, agriculture and the environment?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member sees nothing but a glass half empty. The big news today was on the employment front. The United States lost more than 400,000 jobs, which is terribly bad. Canada was expected to lose a large number of jobs, like 20,000. The point the hon. member ignores, which is the news of the day, is we did not lose any jobs; we gained 1,800 jobs.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada said we lost more than 26,000 full time jobs in October and that is before adding in the most recent losses at Nortel and CIBC.
Today more than 100 economists have written to the Prime Minister urging him to bring in a budget with a major investment in the economy to keep it afloat, saying that tax cuts and lower interest rates alone will not do it.
When will the government understand that public investment in the economy is required, and that we cannot simply wait for George Bush to stimulate the economy to benefit Canada?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the NDP remains mired in the failed tax and spend permanent deficit policies of the 1970s, a morass from which thinking lefties have long ago escaped. The budget will be in December.
Softwood LumberMr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, the government says do not be a nervous nellie about the 32% U.S. softwood lumber tariff, but we have to wonder who it is talking about. Is it talking about the tens of thousands of B.C. people whose jobs are in danger? Is it talking about the hundreds of businesses that are about to shut down? Is it talking about the provincial and municipal governments which will lose revenue for health, education and other services?
These people are beyond nervous. They feel that the government has abandoned a $10 billion industry and has done nothing in five years to help settle this softwood lumber issue.
Will the government get out of its ivory tower and at least start by appointing a special envoy to the United States to help settle this softwood lumber--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade.
Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that. I regret the use of that particular descriptive phrase. The message I was trying to give yesterday was that it was very important that we maintain a united front in this country, coast to coast to coast.
What have we done? The Prime Minister has raised this issue repeatedly with President Bush, as recently as at APEC. One member says that is nothing. I think that is a lot. There are daily contacts with provincial officials, federal officials and the minister. The minister has raised this issue repeatedly.
We need a united front on this, and that is the message I was trying to give yesterday.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, one year ago when we asked about the thousands of jobs that were at risk with the expiration of the softwood lumber deal, the Liberals said “Don't worry. We are working on it”. Some 30,000 British Columbians will likely lose their jobs because of the Liberals' work on the file.
Yesterday a coalition of Canada's leading companies and business associations said that thousands of jobs were at risk by the federal government's inaction on border security. The Liberals said “Don't worry. We are working on it”. How many Canadians have to lose their jobs before the Liberals worry about it?
Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member was a member of the official opposition we frankly never knew where she and that party stood. I am no clearer right now. Earlier they wanted to tie energy to softwood lumber. Then they wanted to negotiate our support with the United States against terrorism and tie in softwood lumber.
Now they seek to divide the country. The Leader of the Opposition said it himself in a special debate. They are playing the old west versus east divide game that is counterproductive to what we want: free trade in softwood lumber.
National SecurityMr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the revenue minister has bragged in the House that the advance passenger information provisions of Bill S-23 would allow Canada customs to scrutinize airplane manifests prior to landing in Canada. Oddly enough U.S. officials released a list of countries not complying with the same measures they have put in place. Along with Syria and Saudi Arabia is Canada.
My question is for the revenue minister. How does he expect foreign carriers to comply with the new Canadian security measures when Canada will not comply with its closest ally?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to report that yesterday I was down in Washington, D.C., to discuss the customs organization as well as future co-operation with the United States. The meeting was very positive for both our organizations.
As well, we will make sure that within the next 10 days a meeting of the steering committee on the shared border agreement which we signed in 1995 will take place to seek ways of co-operation.
I was pleased yesterday to tell those representatives that with Bill S-23 we will be able to put in place a framework.
Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would address the particular point because the U.S. has been urging Canada to participate in a continental security perimeter to secure our trade links. This includes sharing information on foreign travellers entering each country. Air Canada says it is not complying with the U.S. law because Canadian law does not allow it to do so.
The minister has talked repeatedly about harmonization, but we have to wonder how committed he really is. Why will he not agree to this reasonable U.S. request?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely true that current Canadian law does not allow us to do that unless a specific police investigation is involved.
Therefore that is why the government, in the aftermath of September 11, is looking at new technologies to improve the situation and at legislative changes.
Softwood LumberMr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade needlessly provoked British Columbians affected by the lumber crisis with his false and misguided statement when he called them nervous nellies.
In addition to apologizing earlier, will the parliamentary secretary respond favourably to the request made by the whole industry for a summit meeting to discuss Canada's position on this issue?
Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, let me say for the third time that I regret the use of the descriptive phrase by the hon. member, but that does not change the reality that the government is highly engaged on this file.
We filed at the WTO on October 25 to pursue our legal option. We are in a series of negotiations or discussions between Canadian officials and American officials involving the provinces and stakeholders from all parts of the country. We are in daily contact with the provinces and industry officials. There could not be a wider consultation taking place.
Marcel Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, discussions are not enough.
How can the minister tell all the stakeholders that this is not the time to hold such a summit meeting, considering that on November 12 he will act as their spokesman before the U.S. secretary of commerce?
Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know from where the hon. member is getting his facts, but there are very few people in the industry calling for anything more than what is taking place right now: daily consultation and a very aggressive two track approach.
Next week the Minister for International Trade will meet with the new representative Racicot and again press this issue very aggressively. The Prime Minister of Canada has repeatedly raised this issue with President Bush as recently as one week ago at APEC. That is strong, aggressive intervention by this government.
RcmpMr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in direct contradiction to RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli's testimony to the justice committee, RCMP Sergeant Mike Niebeduk said yesterday that the redeployment of 2,000 RCMP officers was affecting important investigations and as a result public safety would be compromised.
Will the solicitor general immediately commit to providing the necessary funding for the hiring and training of new RCMP officers?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that we have just put $100 million into this area and $2 billion including and since the last budget.
We also have a cabinet committee in place evaluating what needs to be done. As the Prime Minister has indicated quite clearly, what needs to be done will be done.
John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, they have to listen to their employees. A senior RCMP officer told me this morning that the $90 million promised by the government for the RCMP means three or four new officers for British Columbia. This hardly makes up for the longstanding deficiency in staffing or for the loss of officers to this special project.
Will the minister make a serious commitment to the RCMP and Canadians to make sure that we have proper law enforcement?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I think $2 billion is a reasonably strong commitment to the security of this nation. I also get my information from the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who has indicated to me that it has the funds to fulfill its mandate.
Publishing IndustryMr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the past few months, some small magazine publishers have been confronted with a terrible alternative: either accept to disclose to Heritage Canada confidential information on their subscribers, or do without subsidies to cover part of their mailing costs.
In order to spare publishers a long process before the information and privacy commissioner, will the Minister of Canadian Heritage take quick action to correct the situation, as she is entitled to do under the act?
Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, in order to demonstrate that public funds are allocated in a transparent manner, the Department of Canadian Heritage relies on third party evaluations of publishers' circulation numbers so that when a publisher indeed can in fact establish that it has 15,000 subscribers it qualifies for the program.
I do not understand. People are always asking us about accountability. What better accountability can we find than the audit we have proposed here?
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, what justification can there be for the minister to accept that the name, street address, credit card number and date of expiry be disclosed to make the publisher eligible for a subsidy, when she knows full well that this is totally illegal?
Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, again I do not quite understand the hon. member's question. He alleges that all these names and addresses are required. I would put him to strict proof thereof.
Quite frankly the publishers can actually select from a wide range of audit services to be able to comply with PAP.
TerrorismMr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Samir Mohamed is a terrorist. He failed a refugee claim in 1997. That was four years ago. Last month he was given yet another hearing while he was being held for direct links with terrorist activities in the United States.
What in the blue blazes is wrong with those people over there? Why is this guy still in Canada?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite would want to congratulate his leader who has realized that refugee claimants, even failed refugee claimants, even failed refugee claimants who came undocumented, have faces, are real people. These cases are often the kinds of cases that members of parliament make representations on.
If the member for Langley--Abbotsford wants to give me notice of any particular case, I would be happy to give him as much information as the privacy legislation permits me to do.
Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I will not give her any notice at all. This has been noticed all over the United States. This fellow is in detention in British Columbia right now.
I want to know from the minister why he is still in Canada after failing deportation hearings once, twice, three times.
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, people who pose a security risk to Canada are held in detention. I am pleased the member opposite noticed that we detain whenever we have a security concern. We detain right up until the time we are able to deport, which is at the end of due process.
It is my goal to deport those who pose any security risk to Canada as quickly as possible. Everyone on this side of the House wants them out of here as quickly as possible.
Prebudget ConsultationsMr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. He spent most of yesterday listening intently to members in the take note debate on the upcoming budget.
Would the parliamentary secretary take a few moments to tell the House what he learned from yesterday's debate?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that excellent question. I spent the whole day in the House yesterday and I thank members for many excellent suggestions.
On the whole we had from the left the tax and spend from the NDP I have mentioned before. On the right from the fifth party we had a blank slate and not one suggestion in concrete terms, suggesting it has no ideas for the budget. From the Reform Alliance a few suggestions were useful, but on the whole it was more slash and burn.
AcoaMs. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Mayor Peter Kelly of Halifax wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday asking for one-third federal support for the Halifax harbour cleanup, an essential and long overdue environmental and waste cleanup project.
The project has been in the planning stages for decades and the mayor has been waiting for two years for a real federal commitment. Will the federal government be coming up with at least one-third of the $260 million required so that we can halt the dumping of raw sewage into our beautiful harbour?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, prior to the government coming into power there were no federal expenditures in infrastructure at all. Since 1993 we have had a third major infrastructure program.
Unfortunately the amounts are higher than the city of Halifax requires, but it is in discussion with us, with the federal government, with the Treasury Board Secretariat and with the Minister of Environment. The Prime Minister has a task force on urban issues and we look forward to the report.
Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, the minister of state has actually mentioned that the project is far too big to fit into the tiny federal infrastructure project.
The federal share in the Halifax cleanup alone is about $90 million. The total commitment for infrastructure under the program across Nova Scotia for next year is less than $20.
How will the federal government be able to pay for the project? At this point in time we need $90 million. Where will it come from and when will it happen?
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, I resent the characterization of our investment in infrastructure as tiny. This very day we will be making announcements in New Brunswick for $20 million which will be expended over the fall, winter and summer periods.
Across Atlantic Canada there will be hundreds of millions in round one alone, creating many jobs. As I said, the question of Halifax will be discussed in the context of all other issues for large urban centres.
Softwood LumberMr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, today Canada's $10 billion softwood lumber industry faces duties of more than 30%. Tens of thousands of Canadian jobs are now at risk in addition to the thousands of workers already sitting idle.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade regrets his quote of a few nervous nellies in one part of the country, but in B.C. alone 15,000 people are out of work because of his government's inaction and not one of them is nervous, just damn mad.
Will the Prime Minister immediately go to Washington and refuse to leave until the issue is settled?
Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, it is absolute nonsense to say that the government has been inactive about this very serious situation.
There was a conscious decision by all involved to let the softwood lumber agreement expire in order to pursue a durable solution. There was a conscious decision to proceed on a two track policy of legal options at the WTO and engage the American officials to find the root causes of this, to find a long term, durable solution and not another band-aid solution that will put us back in this straitjacket five years from now.
FisheriesLoyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
For some time now the inshore crab fishermen in Newfoundland have been operating under permits. They have been requesting that these permits be upgraded to the status of a licence. The minister's department has committed to upgrade the status from permit to licence. In fact it should have happened this past summer.
Could the minister tell us what is happening on this issue? When can these fishermen expect to see the status of permit upgraded to that of licence?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question as well as for giving me notice on this issue.
As the hon. member knows, the snow crab licensing is very good. What has happened is we have issued temporary licences to 2,400 inshore fishermen so they can take advantage of the fishery.
If the licences are made permanent, we have to ensure that they can fish for the long term so we do not have the situation where the Government of Canada once again spends hundreds of millions of dollars to buy back those licences. This is an area I am looking at. A study has been conducted and we are looking at it closely. However, we have to make sure that the fishery is there for the long term so they can take advantage of the fishery.
Foreign Missions and International Organizations ActMr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, while the government's anti-terrorism legislation restricts the freedoms of Canadians in the name of security, the bill next to it, Bill C-35, proposes to place foreign delegates to international conferences above Canadian law by giving them diplomatic immunity. The government already grants full diplomatic immunity to low-ranking foreign support staff who are not entitled to such immunity under international law.
At a time when Canadians are being asked to sacrifice their civil liberties, why is the government placing even more foreign visitors above the law?
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the bill to which the hon. member refers, Bill C-35, does not affect the immunities of diplomats and consuls accredited to embassies and consulates. The focus is about people attending international conferences or international organizations that are not created by treaty. This bill is to ensure that those people have the same immunities. It does not enhance their immunities.
I think what might help the member is if I could provide him with a Cole's notes version of the Vienna Convention. Perhaps then he would grasp better what this bill is and is not about.
Brian Pallister: Mr. Speaker, this goes way beyond the Vienna Convention. Under Bill C-35 any delegate to an international conference can be automatically allowed into Canada without the approval of Immigration Canada, even if that person has a criminal record or direct ties to terrorist groups. The immigration minister will no longer be relevant to the process.
Many members of the House have questioned the minister's relevance in the war against terrorism and this bill makes the immigration minister irrelevant by statute. Can the minister explain how her absence from the process makes Canada a safer place?
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, the bill is not focusing on what the member would have us believe. Again I think if he could grasp what we are and are not doing in Bill C-35, it would help him both in asking his questions and writing his newspaper articles.
For many years there has been a format in place where all diplomats and consuls assigned to Canada are vetted by immigration authorities before their accreditation is approved. Nothing has changed with Bill C-35.
St. Hubert TechnobaseStéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, in the case of the St. Hubert South Shore Technobase, we are unable to obtain specific information about the public moneys spent and the supposed jobs created.
Does the federal government not have a duty to account for the use of public moneys and to explain in particular what became of the $1 billion contributed by the Department of National Defence to the investment fund managed by the Technobase?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, when the St. Hubert military base was closed down and those who generated a certain amount of economic activity left, we set up an independent corporation to redeploy and revitalize the region's economy.
Basically, two funds were created: a $1 million fund, designed as a last resort fund, and which took the form of risk capital and loan guarantees; and a $6 million Economic Development Canada fund to promote technological development, in line with the niche identified by Industry Canada.
I would remind the House that when one looks—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Industry accused the Bloc Quebecois of taking an interest in this issue because of the municipal elections.
If the government is afraid to answer our questions and justify the use of this $1 million fund, is it not precisely because the Hon. Jacques Olivier, a former Liberal minister, is running for mayor in Longueuil?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, the board of directors of Technobase which, at the risk of repeating myself, is an independent corporation, is made up of a number of elected officials from the region, in this case mayors.
It is a corporation which, in my opinion, has done an excellent job for the entire St. Hubert region and for the greater south shore of Montreal.
At the present time, over $3 million has been invested from the Canada Economic Development fund, which has made it possible to diversify the economy and also to create many jobs. We are especially proud of the work done by this corporation.
Softwood LumberMr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade explained to the House that the U.S. is tying softwood lumber to progress on other files. The parliamentary secretary said that President Bush “needs to work with that congress for certain other initiatives he wants to take” before progress can be made on softwood.
Will the acting prime minister confirm that the Americans are waiting for us to take action on a North American security perimeter and other pressing issues before they move forward on softwood lumber?
Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, that is an incredible stretch. I in no way said anything like that. I do not know how the member could possibly have come up with that interpretation.
What I said, and one would have to be incredibly naive not to understand it, is that the United States president has his own congressional pressures that he is dealing with. There are people up for re-election in the United States. That is the reality. The United States is determined to protect its lumber industry even if it hurts its consumers and hurts our industry and workers. We will fight for fair trade in softwood lumber.
Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I am too nervous. I am one of the people from British Columbia who they have absolutely treated with disdain in the House.
A few weeks ago the U.S. settled a long running dispute over plywood by securing Indonesia's co-operation in the war against terrorism. Why is the government, and I would hate to say hiding its head in the sand because its head is somewhere else, not realizing that in order to save softwood lumber jobs here at home, we need to take action on a North American security perimeter and other homeland defence measures in order to gain the co-operation of our American counterparts?
Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of irresponsible suggestion we heard a couple of weeks ago in a question for the Minister for International Trade, that somehow we should bargain our support for the alliance effort against terrorism and link that into the question of softwood lumber. That is irresponsible and we will not do that.
We won this case a number of times before on its merits. We will do so again. We are proceeding at the WTO. We are proceeding with a series of negotiations with American officials. The Prime Minister is directly engaged in this along with the minister. Maybe the member ought to do some homework for a change.
Anti-terrorism LegislationMr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in September Canadians and others around the world witnessed shocking terrorist acts and have come to recognize that new threats face their freedom and security. In light of this, many Canadians are very concerned that minority communities will be unfairly targeted in the wake of these events.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada inform the House as to how we can ensure the security of all Canadians and protect the diversity and harmony that we enjoy in Canada?
Stephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, the anti-terrorism bill deals with terrorist activity by giving important new tools to police, security forces and prosecutors. It also has provisions to protect against hatred to minority communities in Canada. The bill will amend the criminal code to prohibit online use of hate propaganda. It will create new offences against those who desecrate religious sites or places of worship. It will amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to extend the prohibitions against hate speech.
Cultural diversity is one of the strengths of Canadians--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.
Softwood LumberMrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps insisting that he is under no obligation to call a national stakeholders meeting because the current softwood lumber meetings with the U.S. are talks only. The provinces, industry and the minister himself have called these thinly disguised negotiations what they are: negotiations.
By not calling a stakeholders meeting, the minister is favouring negotiations over litigation. Why will the minister not call a national stakeholders meeting?
Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear on this issue. We are involved in an ongoing series of discussions with Canadian and American officials, involving all our provincial representatives and in wide consultation with those provinces.
These discussions have one goal: to find a durable solution to this. Of course, the best would be free trade in softwood lumber. We need a durable solution that will stand up and that does not put us in this strait jacket every few years.
Surely the opposition is not advocating that.
Betty Hinton: Mr. Speaker, of course we are not advocating that. The parliamentary secretary should listen more carefully.
The U.S. department of commerce has biased its anti-dumping investigation into Canadian softwood imports by rejecting all instances of profitability or break-even sales and has chosen to count only negative margins on specific and narrow items within a product line. It then applies this result to all other products, including the positive returns. This is called zeroing out and is challengeable at the WTO.
When will the minister be launching this challenge at the WTO?
Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. member has been, but on October 25 the Minister for International Trade filed for a WTO panel on the softwood issue. The member is a little behind the times in calling for legal action.
The series of discussions is ongoing because we do not think that we should only tie ourselves to the legal avenue. We need a long term durable solution to this, which will respect the fair trade that we want in this country and for which the Americans claim to stand.
Anti-terrorism LegislationMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a special Senate committee has just come out in favour of the key proposals made by the Bloc Quebecois, in particular the sunset clauses and a tighter definition of terrorist activity in the bill. Some Liberal ministers have made similar comments, but the Prime Minister invoked cabinet solidarity to silence them.
Will the government give some indication of its thoughts on this subject?
Stephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, the government is very grateful to the Senate committee for holding pre-hearings to provide it and the House of Commons justice committee with valuable advice as it considers this important bill.
The Minister of Justice has made it clear repeatedly in the House that the government feels that the bill is within the charter and has the appropriate tools. She has also made it clear, as has the Prime Minister, that we value on this side of the House the advice coming from both House and Senate committees on this important issue.
Employment InsurancePat Martin: Mr. Speaker, unemployment is on the rise. Yet two out of three unemployed workers will fail to qualify for any EI benefits at all. The rules are so strict that hardly anybody qualifies any more. This is in spite of a $750 million a month surplus.
The U.S. has relaxed its EI rules in the aftermath of September 11. Why will the government not use the EI surplus for what it was intended: to provide income maintenance for unemployed workers? Why will the government not relax the eligibility rules from 920 hours to 700 hours so that thousands more Canadians will qualify for some income maintenance as we go into this long winter?
Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to my colleague by first saying that I am surprised that a member of that party would actually bring up the United States as a model for a social welfare program, when we know that Canada's social welfare programs are so much better.
I would like to repeat that employment insurance is a key element of Canada's social safety net and has been there for Canadians for more than 60 years. We have a very effective system of income support for those who lose their jobs.
I would like to remind the member as well that we just passed a law--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough.
Anti-terrorism LegislationMr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, the verdict is in from the other place. Along with the majority of witnesses appearing before the two parliamentary committees, along with some ministers and MPs, the Senate also is extremely apprehensive about Bill C-36 going too far. This is evident in the major changes they have recommended.
Is the Prime Minister going to allow the necessary amendments as well as a free vote on this bill?
Stephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member will, I am sure, remember the extensive testimony before the House committee on justice yesterday, where the police community, both from chiefs to police organizations across the country, recommended against a sunset clause.
However, these committees are taken very seriously by the government. It has been said over and over that the information coming before it and the recommendations coming out of it will be given the fullest consideration.
Firearms ActMr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the cost of implementing the Liberal boondoggle firearms registry now exceeds $650 million. It just threw in another $150 million. Amazingly, it snuck half a million dollars in through the National Parole Board.
In light of the huge new pressure on the budget and the urgent need for resources to fight the real threat of terrorism, the government should abandon this bottomless, ineffective sinkhole. It should get the terrorists and let duck hunters go free.
Will the government put former Bill C-68 on permanent hold?
Stephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-68 has now become law. It is an important matter of national security and it is supported by the vast majority of Canadians. The expense to Canadians is less than $3 per year per Canadian for this extraordinary security that we provide and which the people of Canada support.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationMs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada and CBC are currently in the process of reviewing union accreditations. The lawyers representing the CBC before the Canadian Industrial Relations Board are Heenan Blaikie of Toronto.
The senior partner of that firm, Mr. Heenan, is on the CBC board, as well as being a member of its human resources committee.
Does the Minister of Heritage not think that there is, at the very least, an apparent conflict of interest here, and that Mr. Heenan's double role as a member of the board and counsel for the employer is untenable, and that he must step down from one or the other?
Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House and speak about the CBC.
As the member opposite knows, the CBC is arm's length from the government. Under the Broadcasting Act, the management and operations of CBC are mandated by its board of directors. I do not quite understand the member's question to the minister.
HealthMarcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.
In the last century, there were three worldwide outbreaks of influenza. The most devastating pandemic was the Spanish flu in 1918, which claimed at least 20 million lives worldwide.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health tell us what the Government of Canada is doing to protect its citizens in the event of a new influenza pandemic?
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to assure the House that protecting Canadians' health against a possible influenza pandemic is one of Health Canada's greatest concerns.
To that end, the Government of Canada has reached an agreement with Shire Biologics to have it provide a vaccine for all Canadians in the case of such an outbreak.
Thanks to this measure, Canada is the first country in the world to develop and implement a flu vaccination strategy in the event of a pandemic.
Business of the HouseDon Boudria: Madam Speaker, after consultation, I understand there would be unanimous consent to permit the hon. member for Ottawa Centre to introduce now or later this day a bill entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, notice of which was given yesterday, and to permit the bill to be eligible for being placed on the order of precedence.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
Committees of the HouseMr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This report is tabled pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 107.
Criminal CodeMac Harb: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-408, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act.

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill, an act to amend the criminal code and the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, seconded by my colleague from Hull--Aylmer.
The objective of the bill is to eliminate the adjective "legitimate" where used with reference to a child or a descendent in the laws of Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2001Don Boudria: 
moved that Bill S-31, an act to implement agreements, conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Slovenia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, Senegal, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic and Germany for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, be read the first time.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
PetitionsPaul MacKlin: Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring forward a petition on behalf of some of the residents of the riding of Prince Edward--Hastings.
The petitioners call upon parliament to enact an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides as a precautionary approach until such time as their use has been scientifically proven to be safe and the long term consequences of their application are known.
Questions on the Order PaperGeoff Regan: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Jacques Saada: Madam Speaker, I would like to move concurrence in the report I just tabled a few minutes ago.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the House give its consent to go back to motions?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I do not know what it is we are giving consent to right now. I may have missed it.
Jacques Saada: Madam Speaker, it is a list of membership on the liaison committee and associate members. This is done at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Business of the HouseDon Boudria: Madam Speaker, since the question has already been put on the bill, may I ask that we see the clock as 1.30 p.m. and now proceed to private member's 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 member's business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Children of Divorced ParentsJay Hill: moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should draft legislation that recognizes that it is in the best interests of children that (a) they have the opportunity to be heard when parenting decisions affecting them are being made; (b) those whose parents divorce have the opportunity to express their views to a skilled professional, whose duty it would be to make those views known to any judge, assessor or mediator making or facilitating a shared parenting determination; and (c) a court have the authority to appoint an interested third party, such as a member of the child's extended family, to support and represent a child experiencing difficulties during parental separation or divorce.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Surrey--White Rock--Langley for seconding my private member's Motion No. 186 today. I will not read the somewhat lengthy motion into the record, Madam Speaker, since you were kind enough to do that.
The viewing audience at home might be interested in knowing where the idea for the motion came, a motion which obviously deals with not only parental rights but, more important, the rights of the child.
Quite some time ago, on November 18, 1997, the Minister of Justice, the same minister who is currently serving in that position, struck a special joint committee of the House and the other place to look into issues of access and custody involving children of divorced parents.
I would like to read the preamble of the resultant report by the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access which became known and is still known by the term “For the Sake of the Children”.
When she struck that special committee, she said:

That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to examine and analyze issues relating to custody and access arrangements after separation and divorce, and in particular, to assess the need for a more child-centred approach to family law policies and practices that would emphasize joint parental responsibilities and child-focused parenting arrangements based on children's needs and best interests.

That was just part of the directions she gave that special joint committee at that time.
It is interesting to note that the special joint committee did some terrific work. With regard to that special joint committee report, “For the Sake of the Children”, there are few times that committee reports have such widespread universal support for the recommendations that they came up with, but that happened in this case.
Some dissenting minority reports were filed by the opposition parties, at that time the Reform Party of Canada, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP, to the actual report, “For the Sake of the Children”. By and large, they agreed with the thrust of the majority of the recommendations. It was just that the different parties had different ideas on where to go from there and how much to expand on some of the recommendations that were contained in “For the Sake of the Children”.
Why did I go to the effort of taking the recommendations out of the report, “For the Sake of the Children”, drafting them into private members' motions and then submitting them to the House for consideration, as I have done with Motion No. 186? For those who would take the time to look at what is contained in the motion that was just read out, it is virtually identical to recommendation No. 3 in “For the Sake of the Children”.
I have done that with all 48 recommendations in the report. I have drafted them into private members' motions and submitted them to the House for consideration.
All of us, and hopefully most Canadians, understand how private member's business is conducted. We draft motions and bills, submit them and then we participate in what in effect is a lottery. If members are fortunate enough to have their name drawn then they get to choose. If a member's name is drawn for a bill and he or she has tabled, submitted and introduced more than one bill in the House, then the member gets to pick which one he or she feels is the most important at that time or which one is possibly the most timely in the sense of warranting debate on the floor of the House of Commons, and similarly with motions.
I have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60 private member's motions and I had to pick one. I chose this one which then became known as Motion No. 186.
Although we are looking at the motion in a singular sense, what we and the nation need to be discussing on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of families affected by antiquated and ineffective divorce laws in Canada is the report “For the Sake of the Children”. The report contains 48 recommendations. We need to look at it in its entirety rather than just at Motion No. 186.
I give special recognition today to the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton who co-chaired the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. He has remained extremely active on the issue over the years as I have.
Because I sat for the first time in my parliamentary career on the subcommittee that attempts to choose votable items when they are drawn, the member for Sarnia--Lambton graciously accepted my invitation to appear before the subcommittee to plead the case to make Motion No. 186 votable. Even though he is a Liberal member of parliament I pay special tribute to him.
Many members of parliament from all parties represented in the Chamber have often referred to the issue. There are many issues that cut across partisan lines and party positions. However when dealing with the lives of children and families if there is an issue that cuts across partisan politics it would be this one .
I note and applaud the efforts of the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton. I also applaud Senator Anne Cools of the other place. Senator Cools was very active in this report and has remained active in promoting the right of children to be heard during divorce and separation proceedings.
I wish there was time to read all 48 recommendations but this is a lengthy and comprehensive report. Unfortunately the government continues its course of inaction on the file. It is a huge disservice to Canadians and in particular to Canadian children.
As I made reference to earlier, hundreds of thousands of families out there are affected by the issue including extended families and second marriages. Sometimes people get the misconception that the issue is about father's rights versus mother's rights. It is not. All too often there are second families with stepmothers who love the children as if they were their own. They see their families being torn apart because of the inequality inherent in our court system in how these issues are treated.
It is not an issue of father's rights versus mother's rights. It is an issue of children's rights. That is why I chose to highlight this recommendation during this hour of debate.
Like MPs from all parties on both sides of the House I have received hundreds of letters on the issue during my eight year career as a sitting member of parliament. Other members have said similar things in conversations with me. The letters are heart-rending communications from people who are absolutely begging for our help.
I do not have time to refer to many of them but I will read quick excerpts from the latest two letters I have received. The first is from a gentleman by the name of Vic Desautels. He wrote me on October 17. He is from the city of Prince George. He says:

I am involving my political representatives at this time, because the situation I am in will not be useful to you after the fact. Only current problems seem to get attention, even those these injustices will be repeating themselves continually until the system is changed. Not many of us are capable of writing all the letters that need to be written, so I am trying to do my part.

He also says:

I am still active with non-custodial parent support groups. Locally, I am involved with the Parent Child Advocacy Coalition (PCAC), which Todd Eckert and I began as the Parents of Broken Families group.

Another lengthy and heart-rending letter was written on September 13 by Gil McGillivary of Dawson Creek. He says:

I have missed out a lot of activities and bonding time with two sons not that I wanted to but couldn't afford to sustain a long legal battle with my ex-wife. I'm 45. My oldest son has just turned 13 in Alberta child-welfare custody...My other youngest boy is in care of my ex-wife who has not allowed me to see him since he was 7 years old (he's now 11) and all I am to him is a money ticket. My ex-wife has totally alienated me from him and it hurts me. I would have preferred to have been able to take both of my boys camping, hunting, and fishing like any other normal family but have never been able to do so with my sons.

Let us remember that this letter was written two days after the tragedy and horror of the terrorist attack on New York. He concludes the letter by saying:

If the world is going to come to an end shortly or prolongedly war please let me have my son at home without this great distance separating us as a family even if you must find a group home or sponsor here in Dawson Creek, B.C. All my son wants is to be a part of this family. He's scared of what is transpiring in the world as is so many other people in this world. Please help us as quickly as possible. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I am sure you have had similar letters and you can imagine their effect on me. You could probably search through your files and find similar letters that tug at your heartstrings.
It seems that no matter how much emphasis there has been on the issue from both sides of the House, the Minister of Justice has failed to act and rectify the wrongs inherent in the system.
The Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, which received the testimony of thousands of people, either in writing or in person, back in 1988, did great work putting together its report, but what was it for? It sits there gathering dust like so many reports in the past. How frustrating is that for the hundreds of thousands of families and all the children?
There are thousands of divorces every year. Thankfully about 90% of them do not end up in court. Most parents who separate come to a reasonably amicable settlement that does not involve the courts. However about 10% do go to court and the families are torn apart. The children are often used as pawns between warring parents. We must stop this. We must try to do more for these children.
I look forward to the comments of my colleagues from all the other parties on this extremely important issue, an issue that goes well beyond partisan politics.
I hope the Minister of Justice is listening to this and to members on her own side of the House. I hope we will finally see action on this file.
Stephen Owen: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member who has presented Motion No. 186. It has laudable intentions. However I will take the opportunity to outline the reasons the Minister of Justice cannot support the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Prince George--Peace River.
As presented to the House, Motion No. 186 proposes to amend the Divorce Act so that all children whose parents are divorcing have the opportunity to speak to a skilled professional with a view to providing them the opportunity to be heard when parenting decisions affecting them are being made. It is a laudable intention. The motion would also give the court the authority to appoint a person to support and represent the child.
Separation and divorce are difficult for children. The family law system must be responsive to their needs. It is important for the children's well-being that parents and others involved in the justice system learn more about taking the wishes of children into account when making decisions that concern their living arrangements. However they must do so without making the children the decision makers.
According to article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, to which Canada is a party, governments should recognize that children capable of forming their own views have the right depending on their age and maturity to participate in a meaningful way in decisions that affect their lives. Such participation may be direct with the children speaking for themselves, or indirect with someone else presenting the children's views or interests.
Although the intention of Motion No. 186 is laudable the Minister of Justice cannot support it for two important reasons. First, it is inconsistent with the government's commitment to a comprehensive strategy for reforming the family law system that deals with child custody and access.
Second, it is inconsistent with the government's commitment to work closely with the provinces and territories to develop co-ordinated reforms that respect the constitutional divisions of powers and responsibilities. I will explain this.
In its May 1999 response to the report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access the government announced a strategy to identify reforms, particularly reforms respecting amendments to the Divorce Act. The strategy is based on the primary principle that the individual needs, best interests and well-being of children are paramount.
The government's strategy is rooted in four principles. First, there is a desire to promote child centred reforms that focus on minimizing the negative impact of divorce on children. The strategy identifies the need to reform the legal rules, principles and processes that would better structure the decision making process in a child centred way and shift the focus of the family law system from parental rights to parental responsibility.
Second, the government is committed to work closely with the provinces and territories to pursue co-ordinated multi jurisdictional efforts while respecting the division of powers and responsibilities in the area of shared constitutional responsibility.
Third, there is a critical need to explore a broad range of measures to support families going through the separation and divorce process. Statutory amendments alone cannot address many of the problems that are in reality only partly legal in nature.
Fourth, we must recognize that each family has unique characteristics and experiences divorce and separation differently.
The strategy emphasizes the need for a comprehensive government response to address these important issues that have a major impact on children's lives. Motion No. 186 proposes to add only a specific provision to the Divorce Act relating to children's perspectives in divorce proceedings. Although the motion is commendable in its intent it is far too narrow in its scope.
The federal and provincial governments have specific constitutional powers with respect to family law. The territorial governments have specific responsibilities under their original acts. The federal Divorce Act generally applies where parents are divorcing and need to settle child custody, access and support. Provincial and territorial laws apply when unmarried parents separate or when married parents separate and do not pursue a divorce. They also apply to some issues in divorce proceedings.
Currently the federal Divorce Act and provincial and territorial legislation all have the same general legal principles governing custody and access disputes. If the federal law is reformed without corresponding changes to the provincial or territorial laws we risk creating confusion and uncertainty. This would lead to more conflict between parents and an increase in litigation which would only aggravate the difficulties experienced by children.
It is important to remember that provinces and territories have exclusive constitutional jurisdiction over the administration of justice. This includes the responsibility for establishing the rules of civil procedure and administering court services, including procedures respecting Divorce Act matters. We must be very careful to respect this constitutional division of powers when we suggest amendments to the Divorce Act.
What is being proposed by Motion No. 186 would have serious implications for provincial and territorial court services. Motion No. 186 intends to create a section in the Divorce Act that would provide children of divorcing parents an opportunity to express their views to a skilled professional whose duty it would be to make those views known to any judge, assessor or mediator facilitating the determination of parental arrangement.
Implementing the proposed provision would require that services and programs be put in place across Canada. Services would have to be both accessible and affordable for the children of all divorcing spouses. This may be ideal in some cases but it would have major economic consequences on the provinces and territories. They would not respond positively to such a legal requirement and would likely view this as federal intrusion into matters of provincial jurisdiction. Provinces and territories would also likely expect the federal government to provide the financial funding for these services since this legal requirement would be imposed on them by the federal government.
Motion No. 186 also proposes to create a section in the Divorce Act that would provide courts with the authority to appoint an interested third party such as a member of the child's extended family to support and represent a child experiencing difficulties during parental separation or divorce. The section is problematic for two reasons.
First, the Divorce Act only applies to divorcing spouses. The provinces and territories have exclusive jurisdiction over family matters concerning separating parents. Consequently, if this provision were included in the Divorce Act it could only apply to the children of divorcing parents. It seems rather unfair that different services would be available for children depending on whether their parents were separating or divorcing. Unfortunately that would be the result of the proposed motion.
Second, what is being proposed by the motion would have serious implications for provincial and territorial court procedures. It seeks to provide the court with the power to appoint a third party to support or represent the child. Court procedure falls within provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Currently the manner in which the children's perspectives are heard in family law proceedings differs in each province and territory. Some provinces and territories have models of legal representation for children, including a child advocate or lawyer, an amicus curiae or friend of the court, or a family advocate, which is a government appointed lawyer who acts in the child's best interests.
These people have specific training to represent children in family law proceedings. The appointment of a family member to represent a child, as proposed by the motion, may not be in the best interests of the child as this person would likely have neither the advocacy skills nor the knowledge of the law and court procedures to properly represent the child.
Alternatively, if the motion is suggesting that there be a nationwide program of child legal representation, then surely it would fall within provincial and territorial jurisdiction and would require a prior commitment by the provinces and territories as well as a large funding commitment by the federal government.
The government has spent a considerable amount of time working with the provinces and territories to improve the family law system for the children of separating and divorcing parents and to develop well considered reform proposals that would promote a more child centred approach to family law. These proposals were described in the consultation document “Putting Children's Interests First: Custody, Access and Child Support in Canada”.
In the spring of 2001, the federal government, in partnership with provinces and territories, held in person consultations in every jurisdiction across Canada. The responses received through the consultation process have informed the federal-provincial-territorial discussions and guide the development of our reforms in the area of custody and access, which the Minister of Justice has committed to table by May 2002.
For these reasons, the Minister of Justice does not support Motion No. 186 at this time.
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address Motion No. 186 from the hon. member for Prince George--Peace River and its relation to children's rights and needs in divorce proceedings.
Children are often looked at or viewed as property when parents divorce, but they are not simply another thing that needs to be argued over. These children have real feelings, fears and concerns. Often they feel that somehow the divorce is their fault. They wonder if they could have done something to bring it about. To not have their concerns addressed causes further damage to their fragile emotions.
A joint committee was established by the Liberal government to look at the issue of child custody and access. The results were published in 1998 and were then promptly overlooked by this government. I believe that there are some very important points in the report the committee released. The report is called “For the Sake of the Children”. What an excellent title for this topic.
Currently the Divorce Act states that decisions made in custody and access cases are to be in “the best interests of the child”. It fails to state who is to decide what constitutes the best interests of the child: a parent, a judge, a lawyer, a court, or a social worker. The voice of the child is often not included in the decision making process.
One of the mandates of this committee was:

--to assess the need for a more child-centred approach to family law policies and practices that would emphasize parental responsibilities rather than parental rights and child-focused parenting arrangements based on children's needs and best interests--

The motion before us today deals with three areas of change in regard to child custody and access, the first being that children have the opportunity to be heard when parenting decisions are being made that would affect them. Child custody and access should not be about the ownership of the child but rather what environment would be the best for the healthy development of that child, including social, emotional, physical and psychological development.
During the course of the study in “For the Sake of the Children”, many children of divorce were interviewed about their thoughts and ideas about divorce and access. This is what two of the children had to say: “They think you are nine years old and don't know anything. But it's your life”, and, “They're deciding your life and they don't even know you”.
Decisions about the futures of these children are being made by an anonymous person, a judge, who is certainly well intentioned but does not really know these children. Kathleen McNeil, representing Mom's House-Dad's House, stated before the committee:

When one takes the time to listen to the children and truly places their interests first, a greatly different picture can emerge as to what ought to be done in each individual family...Children find it incomprehensible that some unseen person called a judge has said that from now on, one parent...is someone you now have visits with, and not very often. You aren't going to see your parent every day--

The second part of the motion states that children should have the opportunity to share their views and ideas with a skilled professional who in turn would relay those views to any judge, assessor or mediator facilitating a shared parenting agreement.
This would allow children the opportunity to sit down with an unbiased person and let them know what they would like to see done. Their feelings and fears would be taken into consideration. Often children feel out of control. They feel that they have no say in the situation. The decision to divorce was that of their parents. Allowing the children to share their thoughts and ideas gives them a sense of control in this otherwise unstable situation. Traditionally adults are the ones with the power to make all the decisions, leaving children waiting in the wings for the outcome. The court would have the opportunity to get to know the children and therefore make a more accurate determination of what their best interests are when deciding custody and access.
The United Nations convention on the rights of the child was ratified by Canada in 1991. Article 12 of the convention provides for children to have the right to express their views freely in matters affecting them. The federal and provincial governments need to work together to develop a framework that would guarantee that the voices of children of divorce are heard, and not only heard but taken seriously.
Who knows the feelings of a child better than that very child? Part (c) of this motion outlines provisions for a third party, typically a family member, to help represent a child's interests during parental separation or divorce. For children to have a trusted family member near with encouraging words, to hold their hand and help make their voices heard, would be an effective way of empowering children. It would be reassuring to have a loved one near when mom and dad are struggling themselves. Some would say that court appointed representation would be the answer, but that again raises the issue of decisions being made by an individual who does not really know the child. A family member or friend would be better equipped for the position.
One of my concerns is that there are no age limitations in this motion. A child of 3 years is far less likely to fully understand the situation and the ramifications of their actions than a child of 10 or 12. This needs to be considered.
Also in regard to part (c) pertaining to third party representation, I believe the individual should be mutually agreed upon by the parents and the child. Children in the process of divorce are emotionally vulnerable and need to be protected. There would be an opportunity for the third party to sway the child or plant ideas. If the third party were to be agreed upon by all parties involved it would help to ensure a healthy support system for the child.
I believe that more can be and needs to be done to protect the emotional and psychological well-being of children in our country when it comes to divorce proceedings. Healthy children grow into healthy adults. As the number of divorces in Canada continues to rise so too will the number of children affected. We cannot ignore their voices. Without active participation in a decision making process it will be difficult for these children to fully accept the decisions being made.
Instead of presenting children with an adversarial environment, we need to ensure that they feel protected. They need to feel that their wishes, thoughts and feelings are being taken into consideration. Making them part of the solution instead of leaving them on the sidelines would be beneficial to all parties involved.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Prince George--Peace River on the motion. I feel that this would be a positive step in helping to protect our children. The report “For the Sake of the Children” provides an excellent look at the difficulties faced by parents, children and others involved in divorce proceedings in our country. I am saddened that the Liberal government refuses to look at this report or to act on the recommendations from the committee. Positive changes would be possible if the government would listen to the recommendations and to the voices of the children who are affected every day by divorce.
I support the hon. member's motion and I am hopeful that members opposite will see the benefits that this type of reform would provide.
Monique Guay: Madam Speaker, I would like first of all to congratulate my colleague on his great concern for children.
Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose this motion, and I will take the time allotted me to explain why.
We oppose this motion because of the flagrant encroachment by the federal government in Quebec's jurisdiction over separation.
Under sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Acts of 1967 and 1982, marriage and divorce are matters of federal jurisdiction, whereas the celebration of marriage and civil rights are exclusively the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces.
The result is potential friction and confusion. It is therefore vital that Quebec and the provinces be given jurisdiction to ensure consistency in marriage and its effects. We believe therefore that the Divorce Act must be repealed and the jurisdiction transferred to the provinces to put an end to the encroachment in matters of separation.
I cite in this regard Senator Gérald Beaudoin, who wrote, in 1990:

One may wonder why those who drafted the 1867 constitution granted to parliament exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce. It would appear that it was for religious reasons.
Under section 185 of Lower Canada's civil code, marriage could only be dissolved by the natural death of one of the spouses. That principle was accepted by the overwhelming majority of Catholic Quebecers. Protestants wanted the opposite, namely to allow the Canadian parliament to legislate divorce. Hence section 91.26 of the Constitution Act of 1867, which gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Parliament of Canada over marriage and divorce.

The source of the distinction of constitutional jurisdiction is no longer at the core of today's issues, and laws must now reflect the multiple and extended realities of today's families.
This raises the issue as to which legislative body is in the better position to look after the child's interest and the resulting repercussions.
Quebec and the other provinces should have full jurisdiction over family law and should legislate in this area based on their own social reality. In this regard, I want to quote Senator Beaudoin once again:

The question begs to be asked: Should the jurisdiction over marriage and divorce be given to the provinces, so that Quebec could have more control over its family law, an important part of its private law which is different from that of other provinces?
Some experts see advantages in leaving this jurisdiction under section 91. Decentralization here would be a paradox, in their view, while our neighbours to the south appear to be moving toward centralization and standardization of divorce laws. They may be forgetting that we have to different legal systems in Canada, and the arguments supporting their position may be a little less convincing in Canada.

The terminology creates a problem between Quebec, the provinces and the federal government regarding parental responsibility. The closeness of the terms parental responsibility and parental authority generates confusion and allows the federal government to infringe upon the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces.
The notion of parental authority is already applied in Quebec in that both parents are recognized as having parental authority, even if custody or access rights, whether exercised or not, are not involved. Parental authority has as its goal shared decision making by the parents with respect to the educational, social and health issues affecting the child.
Article 394 of the civil code of Quebec provides that the spouses together take in hand the moral and material direction of the family, exercise parental authority and assume the tasks resulting therefrom. The effects of divorce, including clearly defined parental responsibility, should flow from the same legislative source.
Parental authority is exercised both for married couples and for those living common law. The civil rights of the child and the responsibilities of his parents towards him are the same within and outside marriage. The notion of parental responsibility is applied only in cases of separation or divorce and solely to specify the right to custody and access rights, regardless of the child's interests.
There can be no agreement as long as the terminology is not standardized. Agreement is possible only if the Divorce Act is repealed in favour of Quebec and the provinces. The notions of parental authority and parental responsibility could thus be made concordant for enforcement purposes.
At this point, I am going to focus on various parts of the motion which we feel are very important. Quebec already has a third party, and a competent one at that, who can support and represent a child during legal proceedings. This third party is the attorney for the child. Article 394.1 of the code of civil procedure of Quebec provides that:

Where, in a proceeding, the court ascertains that the interest of a minor... is at stake, it may, even of its own motion, adjourn the hearing of the application until an attorney is appointed to represent him.

At this level--and I am speaking for Quebec--children already have a third party to help them through a crisis such as divorce.
There is the entire question of manipulation. There is a danger of manipulation by the children. If asked to voice an opinion on the decision relating to parental responsibility, they may give one that suits them but is not necessarily in their best interest.
Unjust situations can be created by manipulation of the court. Children might opt for living with the parent who always gives in to them.
Children can also cook up situations in order to tip the balance in their favour, manipulating not just the court, but the parents as well. Outside the court, the child could make demands of the parents in exchange for a favourable testimony for one or the other, trying to get each to up the ante. This is not unusual. It is very common to see a situation in divorcing families where the children try to manipulate both father and mother with tales of dad or mom is going to give me this or that, which often are untrue. One can well imagine what could happen if a situation were created which encouraged the risk of such manipulation. This can be avoided. Seeing it in the motion is extremely worrisome.
Parents can also be manipulative. As can be the case with children, parents may also have a tendency to try to manipulate the child to live with them. Parents could try to buy the child's favourable testimony. The result is that the child's testimony is biased. The court might then make a wrong decision in its custody ruling.
The role of the attorney for the child is to represent the best interests of the child, rather than representing the parents' or supporting their attempts to curry the favour of the child.
There is also the whole psychological aspect involved. Everyone knows that separation or divorce can have a severe impact on children and their emotional state. Children are upset when told by their parents that they are separating, and they often experience feelings of guilt. Many children feel that it is all their fault that their parents are divorcing.
These feelings can last a long time, even after the legal proceedings. Children often feel as though they are the target of parental confrontations, or as though they have caused them. Children should never be required to participate actively in such conflicts, which should remain between parents; children are only third parties.
The principle that children should not be made to testify is well known to the legal and psychological professions.
Indeed, a child cannot be required to testify on the parenting abilities of its parents, as this would require the child to have a thorough knowledge of each of its parents.
The child could not only end up feeling responsible for the separation, but for its finality as well.
All of this to say that, obviously, we are living in a time of change. Divorce and separation do occur. And yes, they cause children to suffer. Some of them suffer terribly, but I do not think this motion helps the present legal system in any way. It in fact complicates it. A legal system already exists in the provinces to look after all this.
And so we will oppose the motion.
Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, I also am pleased to enter into this debate on Motion No. 186. As other members have done, I want to thank the member for Prince George--Peace River for his private member's business. It is a very useful and necessary debate.
As has been pointed out, it is an area of broad public interest. In fact as the hon. member from Prince George said, many of us, as members of parliament, receive representation from constituents in our offices on this very issue. These often are some of the most difficult issues with which we have to deal and are often heart-rending stories from people wrestling with the agony associated with a difficult marriage and divorce and the subsequent custody and access issues.
It is a reflection of the broad interest in the subject that the House of Commons, in the last parliament through a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, undertook what had to be the most comprehensive policy review on this subject in Canadian legal history. I know you, Madam Speaker, were part of this committee.
I do not know a great deal about the nature or structure of the special joint committee, but it seemed to me that an overwhelming number of MPs and senators took an active role in this particular study. Although the standing committee was only seven senators and 16 MPs, as many as 40 or 50 other members of parliament sat on the committee at various times as it toured the country. A huge contribution of time, energy and resources went into this, as was only fitting given the broad level of interest and the very necessary debate that must take place.
As I did not have a chance to take part in that standing joint committee, I am glad to have the chance to share some of my views now. I appreciate the motion that the hon. member chose. As an indication of his level of interest in the subject, he chose to submit all 48 recommendations of the special joint committee on custody and access as private members' motions. That is one way we can keep the debate alive in the House of Commons.
There has been very little action on the 48 recommendations. In spite of the huge national interest in the subject, the federal government has been very slow to react to any of the many worthwhile recommendations that were made.
I note the hon. member chose the following motion for debate today. It states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should draft legislation that recognizes that it is in the best interests of children that: (a) they have the opportunity to be heard when parenting decisions affecting them are being made; (b) those whose parents divorce have the opportunity to express their views to a skilled professional, whose duty it would be to make those views known to any judge, assessor or mediator making or facilitating a shared parenting determination; and (c) a court should have the authority to appoint an interested third party, such as a member of the child's extended family, to support and represent a child experiencing difficulty during parental separation or divorce.

This is an eminently reasonable recommendation. It is worthy and has merit in every aspect of it. I am disappointed that some members could find fault with this very principled position. The operative words, as has been cited by other members, are “in the best interests of the child”. Surely that must be the primary guiding directive of any family law policy development review of any kind. It is in keeping with the United Nations convention on the well-being of the child.
Interestingly enough, the report title is not divorce. It is not about child support or alimony. It is called “For the Sake of the Children”. We are on the right track. No matter where the debate began when the committee started meeting, it evolved and matured in a way with which most Canadians should feel very comfortable and gratified.
The hon. member for Prince George--Peace River pointed out that he appreciated the input from people like the member from Sarnia. I am aware of his activism on this issue as well. People like Senator Landon Pearson, who co-chaired the committee, should be recognized in any debate on this subject.
I tried to understand the speaker from the government side on this subject, I still do not fully understand the objection to such a straightforward development, to what would be a shift in policy regarding family law. We are not talking about any fundamental change here. We are talking about better representation. That is one of the basic tenets of fairness. All sides in a misunderstanding or a disagreement should be given the tools necessary to make their points of view known in debate.
In other words, in this case it would be the children, those least able to make their views known, who should be given support or given an advocate, someone to advocate on their behalf to make their views and wishes known. This would be in keeping with the basic elements of fairness. That is why we give legal aid to someone who is charged with an offence and cannot afford a lawyer. It is based on the same principle that a person has a right to a real defence in a tribunal, a meeting or a hearing.
The motion deals with the rights of children in the event of a divorce and it is worth noting some of the changing attitudes toward divorce in general as background information as we go into this debate. Again I will read from the report, which I found very instructive and useful. Under the category of attitudes toward divorce it states:

Most Canadians consider divorce to be a right. Adults are free to marry whom they wish, and if one of the partners finds the relationship unsatisfactory, unhealthy, or unsafe, he or she is free to end the relationship through divorce.

People's attitudes toward divorce changed with the Divorce Act in 1985. It gave Canada no fault divorce. Under that act people do not have to prove or justify why they choose to end a relationship. They can simply announce their unhappiness with the relationship.
It is easy to enter into a divorce but let us take a look at other people who are affected by that choice. An assumption is made in the 1985 divorce law that children are better off living in a divorced situation than they are living in an unhappy marriage situation. This is a presumption. I am not sure if there is any empirical evidence or market research to back it up. It was a belief held by Canadians as they moved into the 1985 view of divorce. They feel that we are better off making it easier for parents to split up because there could be damage to children's development or well-being from living in an unhappy household.
That has only recently been challenged. That has been the prevailing thought in Canada for the last 15 years. There is a growing movement now in which people are not so sure about that any more. I am not talking about abusive relationships or violent situations where there is risk to a child's health, well-being or mental stability et cetera. I note that this book points out that in some states in the United States there are mandatory steps that couples must take prior to applying for a divorce. A comprehensive effort is made to do everything that can be done to keep families together.
I am not saying that it is a panacea. I am not even recommending it for this country as we move forward on this thorny issue. I am saying that what we once accepted as conventional wisdom is not carved in stone. There is nothing static about our points of view. Our thinking on family law should be dynamic and should evolve as the debate matures.
I am glad that this issue is being debated in the House of Commons today. It is appropriate and timely. We owe it to many thousands of people who are embroiled in often heart-rending situations of custody and access disagreements to have this debate in the House of Commons and bring this issue forward so they can take some comfort and solace in the fact that somebody cares. It is obvious that the member for Prince George--Peace River cares very deeply.
Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, my introductory story is about an older couple. He was 92 and she was 91. They showed up in court and said that they wanted a divorce. When the judge asked them why they would want a divorce after 67 years of marriage, the lady said that they would have divorced years ago but that they did not want to hurt the children. She went on to say that the children had all passed away so now they could get divorced.
My story just shows how important it is to put the children first, as that couple did, by hanging in there, settling differences and keeping the marriage together. I commend the member for putting children first in a very difficult situation.
Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, because I overlooked it during my earlier remarks, I would like to note that you were also a member of that committee and your name does appear on the very comprehensive report, “For the Sake of the Children”. I commend you as well for the interest you have shown over the years on this subject. As colleagues from all parties have noted, this does cross all party boundaries and partisan politics.
I want to end the debate this afternoon by thanking my colleagues from the other parties: the Canadian Alliance member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar for her kind and supportive comments; and the New Democratic Party member for Winnipeg Centre for his comments about this important issue, and the support of the intent of the motion.
I note as well the remarks made by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois. It is unfortunate that there are times when one province or another, especially in Quebec, has better family law than in other parts of the country. If we had been able to have a good debate on this subject and Quebecers could have heard the Bloc and other representatives from Quebec present their case, I think it would have been a service to other provinces to note that perhaps there is some superiority in the laws, particularly in Quebec, dealing with families of divorce and separation which we could have incorporated into other parts of the country. However that was not allowed to happen.
I want to note my disapproval, frustration and sadness with the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice as he spoke on behalf of the Minister of Justice and said that yet again parents and primarily children would be asked to wait longer. He used the term May 2002 before another step would be taken on this issue. I say shame on the government for not acting on this issue.
The member also said that to support the motion would be inconsistent with the government's comprehensive strategy of working with the provinces to pursue co-ordinated, multifaceted initiatives and other glowing terms. The reality is that nothing further will be done immediately to address these injustices despite, as he termed it, the laudable intentions of my motion.
The same arguments were used on February 23 when I introduced Bill C-237 that dealt with shared custody or shared parenting. The federal government was not concerned about the federal intrusion into provincial jurisdiction when it imposed Bill C-68, the gun registry, and yet it seems to be very reluctant to do it on behalf of children.
There is only one chance left and I will take it now. On behalf of children across Canada, I seek unanimous consent of the members present on this Friday afternoon to make Motion No. 186 votable.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous consent to make the motion votable?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.
It being 1.13 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.13 p.m.)