Maud Debien

[Divorce Act, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this bill to amend the Divorce Act, Bill C-232. The bill would amend the Divorce Act to provide for a person to be granted custody of or access to any of his or her grandchildren. By virtue of this change, grandparents would no longer be required to obtain leave of the court to make such an application.

Furthermore, this bill would give grandparents the right to be given information as to the health, education and welfare of the child. Finally, this bill provides that these amendments to the Divorce Act would be reviewed by a parliamentary committee four years after coming into force.

Taken at face value, this bill appears eminently acceptable and I must admit that, as a grandmother myself, my gut reaction would be to support the bill.

After all, what grandparent would accept to be denied access to his or her grandchildren after their parents separate or get divorced? Of course, such sensitivity and feelings are only human and quite normal when, for example, they have fewer kids and they live far away, in poverty and in sickness, as the case may be.

Nonetheless, we think that this bill wanders from the primary objective, which is the welfare of the child. The emotional needs of grandparents should certainly not come before their grandchildren's quality of life.

As Madam Justice Andrée Ruffo said, it may be more appropriate to talk in terms of the rights of children to be granted access to their grandparents than the other way around. When there are children involved, the paramount criterion should be their best interests.

All in the name of commendable principles such as the rights of grandparents and the welfare of grandchildren, I can see how Bill C-232 could put the child in the middle not only of family disputes, but also of jurisdiction disputes.

Let us be quite clear on this point. Bill C-232 is inefficient if its primary goal is to facilitate contacts between grandparents and grandchildren. It may make the process easier for grandparents, but it may in turn make things more complicated when the parents are deemed to have retained parental control and there are no reasons for them to be disqualified.

Parental control, incidentally and to the best of our knowledge, is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction under paragraph 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. We wonder if giving more rights to the grandparents, when there is a divorce, is not an encroachment on provincial jurisdiction.

As we know, the federal government has jurisdiction in divorce matters. In a general sense, we wonder if Bill C-232 is a challengeable extension of federal jurisdiction over divorce at the expense of provincial jurisdiction in family matters.

Other questions come to mind. What are the rights of grandparents when the parents are not married, as is now the case for 40 per cent of children born in Quebec? Federal parliamentarians must note that the continued rise in the number of children born outside marriage means that provincial family law is gradually replacing the federal Divorce Act on issues relating to child custody and access rights.

It must be understood that Bill C-232 only affects the children of couples in the process of divorcing or already divorced. Most children are not affected by divorce, while others live, as we have just pointed out, with parents who are not legally married.

This bill may not be as helpful to the grandparents who want access to their grandchildren as it purports to be.

Furthermore, the parents or people with legal custody of a child have primary responsibility for looking after the child's best interests. In abuse cases, judicial remedies may be authorized by provincial legislation. Provincial legislation also applies to all family situations, even in the absence of marriage leading to divorce.

After reviewing this bill, we fear that, despite honourable intentions, C-232 only compensates for some provinces' reluctance to legislate in this area.

As for Quebec, it passed legislation on this issue 14 years ago. Indeed, the Quebec civil code, through article 611, allows grandparents who suffer a prejudice, in terms of their relations with their grandchildren, to ask the courts to examine the details of these relations.

Article 611 of the Quebec civil code provides that fathers and mothers cannot, unless they have a major reason to do so, interfere with the personal relations of a child and his or her grandparents. Unless there is an agreement between the parties, the details of these relations are defined by the court.

This article from the Quebec civil code is not only comprehensive, it is also clear. It can be invoked before or after a divorce, in the case of married people, as well as in the case of common-law couples, single-parent families, or after the adoption of a child by a new spouse.

Quebec's legislation is already far ahead of this unbalanced bill. As we said earlier, the federal government does not have to compensate for the reluctance of other provinces to legislate.

We have problems with another provision of this legislation. I am referring to the fact that grandparents would have the right to make inquiries as to the health and education of a child. Based on Quebec's legislation on personal information, we thought

that the protection of information on health and education also fell under provincial jurisdiction.

It goes without saying that the parent of parents having custody of a child must not be allowed to break the contact between that child and his or her grandparents. The underlying principles of Bill C-232 are closely related to those of the Quebec civil code. However, the Divorce Act may not be the most appropriate tool to grant and recognize rights to grandparents.

I will conclude by saying that, as regards Quebec, we fear Bill C-232 would accentuate the existing double jurisdiction concerning family law. As you know, the federal Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over marriages and divorces, while Quebec can legislate wedding celebrations, property and civil rights, marital regimes, adoptions, separations from bed and board, child custody and so on. This double jurisdiction not only leads to inconsistencies in family law, but also prevents Quebec from making an appropriate reform and creating a unified family court. Bill C-232 might worsen the situation for Quebec.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that this bill is premature and inappropriate. I want to point out to the hon. members that we only wanted to question the merits of that legislation, not necessarily oppose it.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are now on the last amendment presented by the Bloc Quebecois. The purpose of this amendment is to amend, improve and clarify the bill to implement the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. Although the parliamentary secretary does

not agree, I still believe that the hon. member for Verchères proposed an excellent amendment.

The amendment is an attempt to provide the basis for certain rules on what constitutes injury, with respect to dumping. At the very least, what I have to say may expand the horizons of the parliamentary secretary. During the past few weeks, through the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we were able to consult many Canadians and Quebecers.

They admitted their concern about the lack of clear provisions in Bill C-57 with respect to dumping. A number of people said they were afraid that imported goods would be sold on the Canadian market at prices below those prevailing on national markets and, in some cases below cost.

Bill C-57 already contains certain provisions on the evaluation of complaints about dumping by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. An attempt is made to determine whether certain unlawful acts would harm the interests of Canadian and Quebec producers.

However, the bill provides that the tribunal cannot recognize the existence of injury unless the circumstances causing injury are clearly perceived and imminent.

These provisions are not only extremely restrictive but also extremely vague. The bill contains no detailed instructions for determining what constitutes clearly perceived and imminent injury. It does not define the type of evidence that may be considered by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

Furthermore, it is simply left up to the governor in council, on the advice of the Minister of Finance, to establish regulations, if necessary. If he feels like it, as the hon. member for Verchères said. We think it is important that the Minister of Industry, who is in the best position to know about the problems facing Canadian businesses, should also be able to make recommendations to the governor in council on factors to be considered in determining whether there is a case of dumping. More should be done, however.

Our American neighbours have issued clear and detailed instructions on approaching tribunals with complaints about dumping and on the evidence to be considered by those tribunals.

It is therefore imperative that Canada provide clear and specific guidelines on the factors that would be admissible as evidence before the tribunals. Without these guidelines, Canadians and Quebecers, when they lose the advantage as a result of unlawful acts-I am thinking of steel producers, for instance-will not know how to argue their case to obtain justice.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I continue my statement on the amendment moved by my colleague for Louis-Hébert to amend clause 58 of Bill C-57.

Clause 58 of Bill C-57 is eloquent, not to say blatant, on this subject. I quote paragraph ( a ): a ) to fix the performer's performance, or any substantial part thereof, by means of a record, perforated roll or other contrivance by means of which sounds may be mechanically reproduced,

In inventing the phonograph, Thomas Edison thought that sounds could be permanently recorded for reproduction. Personally, I think that the Canadian government thinks that the Copyright Act is and must remain permanently recorded on obsolete media.

Here is a very small example illustrating how outdated Canada's Copyright Act is. The cultural community in Canada and Quebec is still waiting for a real review of this law passed in 1926, which has been only slightly amended since 1988.

Unfortunately, it is only because of economic imperatives arising from multilateral trade agreements to which Canada is a party that Canada is concerned about the cultural development of Canadians and Quebecers.

The Union des artistes, which appeared before the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade studying Bill C-57, is very explicit on this subject. I quote: "At a time when digital technology is breaking down the old distinctions between various audio and audio-visual media; at a time when direct satellite transmissions and the information highway will redefine how our works are consumed and used, Canada is still protecting its creative artists and defending its culture with measures imposed on it because it signed international trade treaties».

Continuing on this route is unthinkable.

The amendment presented by my colleague from Louis-Hébert would simply modernize and update an obsolete, antiquated law and at the same time give our artists a minimum of protection, and I do mean just a minimum.

Let us hope that Quebecers will soon have an opportunity as well to rejuvenate their political system and adapt it to new realities and to get rid of the outdated structures of Canadian federalism.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-57 to implement the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization includes approximately 20 clauses dealing with copyright. Most of these clauses are designed to ensure that the

Canadian Copyright Act is in conformity with the Trade Related Aspects of International Property Right, the document that sets the WTO copyright rules.

On the whole, as necessary as they may be, these are nonetheless minor changes. They do however put into perspective the resistance to change and indifference of the Canadian government in terms of intellectual property, as evidenced by Clause 58, lines 5 to 8, on page 25 of Bill C-57. This clause establishes a new right, namely that of authorizing without consent the fixation and reproduction of the performer's performance. The wording of this provision is prima facie proof of how deeply anachronistic and antiquated the Canadian Copyright Act.

In poetic terms, one could say that in the beginning, there were the natural sounds of the elements: the crash of the sea, the whistling wind, the murmuring breeze, the rumble of falling rocks and the crackling of the fire. Then came the natural sounds of human and animal communication: bird songs, monkey grunts, a child's cry, the murmur of love, the African tam-tam. Less than a century ago, all sounds had to be heard live.

Through an evolutionary and creative process, the air is now filled with sounds recorded on records, tapes, CDs, videos, CD-ROMs. Unfortunately, it would seem that the Canadian Copyright Act remains frozen in time, around 1878 to be more precise, the year that Thomas Edison invented perforated roll recording.

Clause 58 of Bill C-57 is a clear, not to say glaring, example. It reads: "to fix the performer's performance, or any substantial part thereof, by means of a record, perforated roll or other contrivance by means of which sounds may be mechanically reproduced-"

When he invented the phonograph, Thomas Edison thought that sounds could be fixed permanently to be reproduced.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

I rise today to speak on the bill to implement the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. I wish to deal more precisely with the amendment presented by the Official Opposition, which is aimed at adding new clauses, namely clauses 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, on page 3 of Bill C-57.

First, clause 3.1 proposes to establish a process for consultation with the provinces regarding three specific issues. It is important for us that the Canadian government establish, before the agreement comes into force, such a federal-provincial mechanism to implement the agreement. This is the first issue about which provinces should be consulted wherever the implementation of the agreement relates to a matter within provincial legislative jurisdiction. For example, the federal government should be obliged to consult the provinces on matters relating to copyright, agriculture, environment and labour. Sovereignists are not the only ones demanding such measures.

Since 1988, the provinces have demanded to be consulted in connection with the Uruguay Round trade negotiations. If we take a close look at what is happening next door in the United States, we see that such measures have already been introduced. In the Statement of Administrative Actions, the U.S. government statement on the implementation of the GATT agreement, it says, and I quote: "these consultations", and this refers to consultations with the American States, "will begin immediately upon enactment of the implementing bill".

In the bill now before Congress in the United States, there is one specific section on the consultation process between the U.S. federal government and the States. Section 102 of the bill, part B, under the heading: "The relationship of the agreement to United States law and state law", explains how consultations between the States and the central government are to proceed. If the Canadian government refuses to support the Official Opposition on amendment 3.1, this would mean that my federal colleagues have an even more centralist vision than the U.S. government and that they consider the provinces to have less power than the American States.

If that should be the case, members who vote against our amendment will have to tell the Prime Minister of Canada to keep quiet, when he says Canada is the most decentralized country in the world. A federal government that would refuse to undertake to consult the provinces on matters over which they have jurisdiction is centralist in the extreme.

The second point on which we believe consultation with the provinces is important is dispute resolution under the agreement. Without this amendment, Bill C-57 puts absolutely no obligation on the federal government to consult the provinces, even when the disputes affect them directly. In recent disputes about magnesium, softwood lumber and beer, to name only a few, the federal government was under no obligation to consult the provinces. This amendment is therefore essential if we are to respect the jurisdictions of the provinces.

In their bill, the Americans also provide that the federal government shall consult the States when trade disputes are reported to the World Trade Organization. Clause 102, Part C, paragraph iii), clearly states that every state of the union should be actively involved at every stage of consultation and at each subsequent stage of any trade dispute resolution process.

Third, we want the provinces to be consulted on major economic issues. Clause 145(4) of Bill C-57 states that the territory of Canada may be divided into two or more regional markets. This entails developing specifically regional or provincial policies, hence the need for a consultative mechanism between the two levels of government, to harmonize our policies in view of our international commitments.

Major international fields may have a substantial impact on Canada. Take the monetary policy, employment development or loans to developing countries for example. The provinces are greatly affected by what happens in these areas. For all these reasons, the government must consult them.

Let us now move on to paragraph 3.2. This Bloc Quebecois proposal is to ensure that the Governor in Council and the Minister of International Trade will obtain prior agreement of the provinces before taking one or the other of the following actions.

First, the federal government would not be allowed to change allocation mechanisms for tariff quotas without prior agreement of the provinces. We all know that, as a result of the Uruguay Round, import quotas on dairy products, poultry and eggs were eliminated.

Import quotas were replaced with tariff quotas, which will make the quantity that can be imported increase slightly. What the agreement entitles us to do is to allow a specific volume of imported goods tariff-free in accordance with tariff quotas and to jack up the tariff on the rest.

Bill C-57, however, provides that the minister has discretionary power to decide who can import these products within tariff quotas. In order to avoid log rolling or an apparent conflict of interest on the part of the government, we propose that this decision be made jointly by the minister and the provinces.

The second type of action requiring provincial consent has to do with the agreements negotiated with some trade partners to give them guaranteed access to part of the Canadian market.

While the government is committed to opening up our economic borders under trade liberalization agreements, a new protectionist trend is emerging. Canada is currently negotiating quasi-formal agreements with some countries, which would receive special access to Canadian markets in return for guaranteed access to their markets for some Canadian products. For example, Canada could promise a country that it will buy a certain quantity of their butter during the next year in return for their commitment to buy a certain quantity of Canadian beef in the next 12 months.

Such agreements could have considerable regional impact in Canada. The production of certain goods is often concentrated in a single region. A good agreement for all of Canada could have a disastrous effect in one province in particular. It is therefore imperative that the provinces have their say on this.

Let us move on to Clause 3.3. The Bloc Quebecois proposes that, in respect of subsidized exports, the federal government be very vigilant and have regard at all times to actions taken in the relevant areas by foreign competitors. The GATT agreement provides that export subsidies should be reduced by 36 per cent over a six-year period. In addition, the volume of subsidized exports is also to be cut by 21 per cent.

Canada-that is why we are proposing this amendment-must ensure that its trade partners periodically reduce their subsidies to the products covered by these regulations.

This amendment is especially important since these regulations already favour both the EEC and the United States. Because American and European exports are already more heavily subsidized, reducing the current subsidy rate will main-

tain their export subsidies at higher levels than ours. The poorest countries on earth will be hit even harder than us by these measures, since they often do not subsidize their exports.

This measure threatens the access of developing countries to our markets. We should at least make sure that the wealthiest trade partners honour their commitment to lower the level and volume of their subsidies, in order not to reduce even further our competitiveness on international markets.

Furthermore, under section 424 of the Uruguay Round Agreement Act in the United States, the U.S. government will require the President to submit a report to Congress in which Canada's actions will be reported in order to see whether Canada is complying with the Uruguay Round and NAFTA commitments concerning dairy and poultry products. Why would Canada refuse for its part to anticipate what might happen?

Fourth and last, we propose adding to clause 3.4 guarantees so that the minister can ensure that the discretionary tariffs he establishes in case of shortages for some agricultural products set the price no lower than the Canadian market price. This is an important addition because it seeks to prevent importers from claiming a false shortage if they know that the minister will impose tariffs that are low enough to let them sell their imported products at a lower price than Canadian producers.

In conclusion, I would like to return to the spirit of clauses 3.1 and 3.2 and repeat that the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois are not simply an expression of Quebec sovereignist rhetoric. We want every Canadian province to be consulted by the federal government. We are just demanding the same kind of measure that the United States is about to vote on.

Canadian parliamentarians today have an opportunity to show that Canada is a flexible country. That is how the amendment now being debated should be seen.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-57 be amended by adding after line 11, on page 3, the following new Clauses:

"3.1 The Minister of International Trade shall establish a process for consultation with the provinces regarding

(a) implementation of the Agreement wherever implementation relates to a matter within provincial legislative jurisdiction; and

(b) any matter relating to trade dispute resolution under the Agreement;

(c) any economic matter of major international significance.

3.2 Notwithstanding any provision in this Act or in the Agreement, the Governor in Council or the Minister shall not, without prior agreement of the provinces,

(a) authorize any change to the Agreement in respect of allocation mechanisms for tariff quotas;

(b) establish or implement policies for selecting trade partners to receive access to the Canadian market.

3.3 In respect of subsidized exports, the Minister shall, in implementing the commitments made by Canada under the Agreement in respect of prices and quantities, have regard at all times to actions taken in the relevant areas by foreign competitors.

3.4 In respect of agricultural products imported beyond established tariff quotas at a time of shortage of such product in domestic markets, the Minister shall take such measures as may be required from time to time, including imposition of tariffs, to ensure that such products are not imported at prices lower than those prevailing for the same products in the domestic markets."

[Immigration, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister guarantee that the deportation order will be quashed in the next two weeks?

[Immigration, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I was shocked to read in the papers this morning that immigration authorities are about to deport a woman from the Seychelles Islands and her two children.

Immigration Canada refuses to take into consideration the letter of threat written by the woman's husband, who was sent back to his country, in which he says that he will kill her when she returns to the Seychelles.

Considering that the minister has released gender guidelines to protect refugee women who are victims of spousal abuse, does he not think that the death threat made to Mrs. Sabadin warrants his immediate intervention to prevent that woman and her two children from being deported to the Seychelles tomorrow, where she might be killed?

[Foreign Policy, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in its majority report tabled yesterday on Canada's foreign policy review, the Liberal majority shows an incomprehensible mistrust towards the United States, which is still our main trading partner. Instead of noting the continentalization of our economy, the Liberal majority has adopted an unhealthy attitude towards the U.S.

The report is very eloquent in this regard. When dealing with Canada's trade relations with the Asia-Pacific region, it talks about challenges, but on the subject of trade with the United States, it talks about problems. These very different terms reflect the Liberals' mental block towards our southern neighbours. The existential problem of Canada, torn by a double identity, will not be solved through this stubborn refusal to accept the American reality. Obviously, the Liberals have not managed to extricate themselves from the vicious circle in which the Canadian establishment has been caught for decades.

[International Trade, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, after putting the axe to the "welfare state" the government is replacing it with the "entertainment state" as we can see from Team Canada's trip to Asia! Yet, taxpayers are served a lot of warmed-up dishes. For example, we witnessed yesterday with some surprise the "re-signing" of an agreement between Bombardier and Power Corporation to work in China, something which had already been signed in April.

I should also mention the contract for the subway in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, "announced" with fanfare last week when it had, in fact, been signed at the end of September. How can the government take credit for it when the cars were already under construction at the UTDC plant, in Ontario, long before Team Canada's trip? The government is hopping on the train while it is already moving!

Of course we are all pleased with the contracts signed in Asia by Canadian and Quebec companies but we denounce the fact that the government is trying to take credit for it, for purely partisan reasons. As Confucius would have said "Travellers from afar can brag with impunity".