House of Commons Hansard #191 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was lobbyists.

Topics

Official LanguagesOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

John Harvard Liberal Winnipeg—St. James, MB

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

My colleague is familiar with recent reports from the Commissioner of Official Languages. Those reports single out problems that some Canadians are having in getting service in the two official languages from federal offices.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House what the government is doing to get at these problems to ensure that Canadians receive federal services in either official language where that is entitled?

Official LanguagesOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

St. Boniface Manitoba

Liberal

Ronald J. Duhamel LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, the commitment and the resolve to ensure quality services in federal buildings under the Official Languages Act continues.

The Secretary of the Treasury Board will be requesting action plans from all of those departments where performance was weak or where they were not investigated. Those plans will be brought forward by the end of September, will be put together and brought to the parliamentary committee on official languages for discussion. The degree to which the implementation has occurred will be reviewed in March 1996 and every six months thereafter.

Finally, a list of all of the buildings requiring those services have been updated and circulated. There have been over 700 consultations in the regions to try to ensure that the service is improved.

Volunteer WorkOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The minister recently published a brochure promoting National Volunteer Week. This brochure emphasizes the importance of volunteer work in our communities and pays tribute to the 13 million volunteers in Quebec and Canada who give their time to the disadvantaged, the needy and the neglected.

How can the minister stress the merits of and need for volunteer work when the funds allotted to voluntary organizations have fallen from $1,066,000 in 1993-94 to $65,000 in 1995-96, a 94 per cent cut?

Volunteer WorkOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Laval West Québec

Liberal

Michel Dupuy LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I have yet to announce the amounts that will go to volunteer organizations. I support their work because it is eminently commendable and because it furthers the development of Canadian society.

ImmigrationOral Question Period

May 1st, 1995 / 2:55 p.m.

Reform

Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, a recently published study on the economics of immigration has confirmed that the Reform Party has been right all along. It found, among other things, that the skill and language levels and ability to integrate of today's immigrants has declined as a result of the short-sighted family reunification and refugee policies of the government.

In light of this study, will the minister of immigration immediately reconsider his 1995-96 do nothing immigration plan, a plan that makes no significant changes to the policies of the last decade?

ImmigrationOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

York West Ontario

Liberal

Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, the levels document we presented to the House of Commons was not only the work of the caucus and the government. For the first time we reached out, talked and discussed with over 10,000 Canadians the kind of immigration policy that the country wants to have and what were their views on our position in the international community. The answer is, no, we will not reconsider.

Non-Governmental OrganizationsOral Question Period

3 p.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Kingsway, BC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Recently the government announced the total elimination of funding for global education groups and youth organizations, from the Queen Charlotte Islands Global Link Society in B.C. to the St. John's Oxfam office in Newfoundland, as well as the total elimination of $8 million for the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

I want to ask the minister this question: In view of the government's earlier promises in the foreign policy statement and in Cairo to strengthen these programs, will the government now reconsider this slashing? And will it explain why it has abandoned the promises it made to the people of Canada and to the poor women of the world?

Non-Governmental OrganizationsOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Michel Québec

Liberal

André Ouellet LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the hon. member that indeed we are not abandoning our commitment. We are going to do it differently. We will privilege bilateral relations and programs with non-governmental organizations that are operating in those countries where the need is the greatest.

We are certainly determined, as our red book has said and as our policy enunciations reiterate, to play an active role in this regard.

National DefenceOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. As the minister is aware, the efforts of the competition bureau to increase competition in household moving have been thwarted by the IDC.

The first two new suppliers in the past 20 years have been eliminated in the first 30 days of the contract. As a result of IDC action, the only wholly Canadian owned suppliers were forced to withdraw.

Can the minister explain to this House how this came about and what action the government proposes to take in this regard?

National DefenceOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Don Valley East Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette LiberalMinister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague has shown a great interest in this matter and I commend him for it. He will remember that the bureau of competition did conduct an exhaustive review of this particular issue. The interdepartmental committees worked on contracting procedures and found that all of these procedures did comply with all aspects of competition law.

A number of recommendations were made for increasing the competition and encouraging new companies to bid for this business. A number of measures were implemented in the past year, and as a result of the changes there were four new companies that did engage in the bidding process. It now turns out that both of the successful companies that won are run by the same person and for unknown reasons have withdrawn from the competition.

There will be further information coming on this file a little later. I want to assure the hon. member that we have taken his suggestions into consideration in the formulation of our new policy.

Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to no fewer than 90 petitions.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation TreatyRoutine Proceedings

3 p.m.

Richmond B.C.

Liberal

Raymond Chan LiberalSecretary of State (Asia-Pacific)

Mr. Speaker, a few days from now representatives of 175 nations, including Canada, will gather in New York to decide the fate of the most important international arms control agreement in force today, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, NPT. Few agreements are as important to Canadian security as this key international agreement.

Today I want to outline briefly why Canada supports the indefinite and unconditional extension of the NPT and the reasons we will be encouraging others to do the same at this important conference.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty, of which Canada was an original signatory, entered into force in 1970. The NPT is important to Canada for three essential reasons. First, the NPT establishes a barrier to the further proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is the NPT's most fundamental purpose and its most outstanding success. By limiting the spread of nuclear weapons, Canada and the world are more secure as a result.

Second, the treaty provides the framework for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy by establishing a system of effective international safeguards. These safeguards, implemented by the International Atomic Energy Agency, ensure that nuclear material is not being diverted to weapon programs. Canada will not sell nuclear technology to any nation that does not have a safeguard agreement with IAEA and has not signed the NPT or a regional equivalent. Our exports of nuclear technology under safeguard agreements have helped to sustain an industry that employs 20,000 people directly and another 10,000 indirectly.

Third, the treaty commits all states to work toward disarmament, including nuclear disarmament. This unique binding legal obligation, particularly as it falls on the nuclear weapons states, firmly establishes our long term goal: the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The decision we members of the NPT must make is whether to extend the treaty indefinitely or for a more limited duration. Our position is quite clear: we believe that Canadians and people around the world deserve an enduring commitment by their governments to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to pursue nuclear disarmament.

Those who argue that the NPT should not be made permanent keep open the possibility of its disappearance at some future point. This is not in anyone's interest. We must once and for all close the door on that possibility.

With the end of the cold war came an end to the nuclear arms race. It came to an end because of greater trust, openness, and cooperation between Russia and the west. That is the path to

disarmament: greater security. The NPT is essential to work toward greater security and cooperation between nations.

We cannot forget that 1995 also marks the tragic 50th anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The great American statesman Adlai Stevenson once said that evil is not in the atom but in the souls of men. Do we need a better reason to co-operate, establish and defend international laws that curb the madness of those who would act to undermine international peace and security?

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty has served Canada well for 25 years. It is now time to enshrine those benefits for future generations.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation TreatyRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Marc Jacob Bloc Charlesbourg, QC

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to discuss the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, whose future is currently being decided in New York. The NPT is the most important international treaty on arms control.

Last fall, the Bloc Quebecois had the opportunity to state its position on the issue of nuclear disarmament, when the joint committee conducted its review of Canada's defence policy. The emergence of new confirmed and unconfirmed nuclear powers makes the issue of nuclear disarmament more complex than ever.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois strongly supports the indefinite and unconditional extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We hope that its very wide membership will be extended even more. While more than 160 nations have ratified the treaty so far, some countries which could conceivably develop such mass destruction weapons refuse to sign the treaty, thus jeopardizing the current foundations of international peace. It is important to ensure the continuity of the treaty and to improve its efficiency.

It is possible to convince countries to do without nuclear weapons. In the past, at least four countries, namely Canada, South Africa, Brazil, and Argentina, made efforts to that end. Would it not be more efficient, and a lot more attractive for the world, to work on a multilateral agreement to eliminate such weapons, as was recently done for chemical weapons?

While the Secretary of State, Asia-Pacific, was raving about the NPT and Canada, which was one of the first two signatories to that treaty, I could not help but wonder about this government's inconsistency in the conduct of its foreign affairs.

It is a well known fact that the Canadian government is now only interested in its own commercial interests, at the expense of human rights, democracy, as well as international security.

Indeed, how can the government explain the fact that it is about to authorize and to finance, to the tune of $2 billion, the sale of CANDU nuclear reactors to China? The Bloc Quebecois feels that the government should at least demand that China comply with the NPT, rather than violate the moratorium on testing agreed to by other nuclear nations.

The sale of these reactors could undermine the international community's efforts to end nuclear proliferation.

The Canadian government's behaviour is not any better, nor any more consistent, as regards the sale of CF-5 fighter bombers to Turkey. We know that Turkey is pursuing a military offensive in northern Iraq, against Kurds. We repeatedly, but vainly, asked the government to stop negotiating that sale with Turkey.

I think you will all agree that this government is not very consistent in the conduct of its foreign affairs.

The fact that it now supports the indefinite and unconditional extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty gives us some hope. But we urge the government to show more consistency. For example, Canada could adopt a much stricter policy on co-operation in the nuclear sector. As written, the present non-proliferation policy allows nuclear exports to non-treaty countries, as long as these countries promise not to use any material to produce nuclear weapons. There must be a stricter policy in this area, if Canada wants to be consistent with its interpretation of the nuclear threat and the outbreak of military conflicts all over the world.

Canada could also innovate by suggesting strategies consistent with its interest in international peace. In this regard, for example, concrete measures could be taken. One, concerning the export of fissile materials on which Canada has a say, notably because of its radioactive material resources and its nuclear technology expertise.

Two, Canada should submit to the international court a judicial analysis establishing the illegality of nuclear arms.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation TreatyRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Bob Mills Reform Red Deer, AB

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the invention of the nuclear bomb and its first use on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as we have mentioned.

These weapons created a new horror for humanity, the scope of which we have never known before. Upon witnessing the detonation of the first nuclear test explosion, Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Manhattan project, in his shock and amazement at the devastation quoted an ancient Hindu scripture that read "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds".

It was true that for the first time in history man could destroy the earth, and nothing has been the same since. Not only did the atomic bomb magnify the horror of war, but it changed it fundamentally.

Throughout the centuries, civilian populations were largely left beyond the battlefield. At the very least, a conqueror or destroyer would be forced to fight its way through a country's defences before they could do significant harm to civilians. In other words, there was always a defence and hope.

With the creation of nuclear weapons, two things changed. First, civilians were no longer unintended victims; they were the primary targets, and they could be incinerated by the millions. Second, no matter how strong the country's defences were or how tough its army was it was still completely vulnerable to nuclear destruction.

Responding to the threat that nuclear weapons would spread across the world, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the NPT, was negotiated in 1970 and has been strongly supported by Canada ever since.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already described its key features and advantages, I will not repeat them. However, I will say that the Reform Party will give 100 per cent support to the government in its efforts to negotiate an indefinite and unconditional extension of the NPT.

For the future of our citizens and all the people of the world Canada must be a leading voice in the UN, calling for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. No good can come from such weapons of mass destruction, and their ownership should be negotiated away by all governments in good conscience.

The Reform Party sincerely hopes that the NPT can be renewed indefinitely; however, if certain countries withdraw or fail to sign on we believe the government should take into consideration whatever action it can use to promote bilateral action against those countries.

The time has come for the world to take a few large and rapid steps away from nuclear annihilation. The end of the cold war has made this possible, and now the unconditional and indefinite renewal of the NPT is the next logical step. For our collective future we must not fail in this task.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 74th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the list of the standing committee associate members.

With the consent of the House, I intend to propose adoption of the 74th report later today.

Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation ActRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Etobicoke North Ontario

Liberal

Roy MacLaren Liberalfor the Minister of Foreign Affairs

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-87, an act to implement the convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation ActRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Acadie—Bathurst New Brunswick

Liberal

Douglas Young Liberalon behalf of Minister of Industry

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-88, an act to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Bankruptcy And Insolvency ActRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Reform

Paul Forseth Reform New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-323, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (order of discharge).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce this private member's bill today and I thank my hon. colleague for seconding introduction and first reading.

Earlier this year I was approached by a Vancouver area lawyer who told me of a concern he had with the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The concern is that an offender can be released from having to pay any damages arising from assault awarded in a civil law suit if they claim bankruptcy.

The plight of the victim should take precedence over the rights of the offender. The victim in this country has suffered enough, and then to be hit with a blow that no payment for damages will be received because of a loophole in the bankruptcy act is completely unacceptable.

Many have been victimized by abusive relationships only to learn that later they will not receive the awarded damages because of a loophole in the federal statute. Fines, alimony and

fraud debt are not exempted; civil damages from criminal assault should not be exempted either. Action must be taken now to amend the flawed act.

The bill I am introducing will add to the list currently in the act under section 178. The addition will be civil damages in respect of an assault or battery on a victim. The changes will give the victim more rights. Every member in the House knows the victim certainly deserves more consideration than the convicted offender.

It is an honour as a private member to have the opportunity to introduce a bill. However, I want the government to take a close look at the legislation. I know the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Justice are interested in this. I encourage the government to take it over exactly as it is.

Canadians want Parliament to be comprised of effective policy making. The way this can be done is to support any legislation that will truly benefit the country as a whole.

Since victims of crime have no party label, I invite non-partisan support for the bill from all corners of the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 74th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

John Richardson Liberal Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, today I will be presenting petitions under two categories.

First, the undersigned citizens draw to the attention of the House that because of the inclusion of sexual orientation in Bill C-41 it will provide those engaging in homosexual practice with special rights and privileges.

Because these special rights and privileges will be granted solely on the basis of sexual behaviour and because inclusion will infringe on the historic rights of Canadians such as freedom of religion, conscience and expression, therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to oppose any amendments to the federal Criminal Code which would provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

John Richardson Liberal Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, the second petition on behalf of my constituents deals with another subject.

The undersigned draw to the attention of the House that the Supreme Court of Canada has allowed extreme intoxication as a defence for sexual assault and that this ruling has also been used recently as a defence for wife assault. This ruling is regressive to women's rights and consequently provides men with additional justification to abuse women and their children.

Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to reverse the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to allow extreme intoxication as a defence for sexual assault or physical assault.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present another petition in the course of action undertaken on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.

The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our streets safer for our citizens and are opposed to the current practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the full extent of their sentences.

The petitioners pray our streets will be made safer for law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of convicted murderers.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have been requested to table a petition signed by 63 Canadians, of whom 9 are residents in my riding.

The petitioners call on Parliament to desist from passing legislation legalizing the use of BST/rbGH in Canada. They further request legislation be passed requiring all imports produced from BST/rbGH treated cows to be so identified.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present four petitions today.

The first petition is on the subject of official languages. The petitioners claim the majority of Canadians are opposed to this policy and demand a referendum to determine whether Canada should continue with its current policy.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on the subject of the family. The petitioners request Parliament oppose any legislation that would directly or indirectly redefine family, including the provision of marriage and family benefits to those who are not related by ties of blood, marriage or adoption where marriage is defined as the legal union between a man and a woman.