Debates of April 19th, 1994

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Process

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent for proceeding immediately with the vote on the main motion and for applying to the main motion the division just taken on the amendment.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, it will be necessary for the member for Yukon, the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing and the member for Regina-Lumsden to be recorded as a negative vote on this motion.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, an act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances and to amend certain other acts and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Controlled Drugs And Substances Act

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment at the second reading stage of Bill C-7.

The question is on the amendment.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the results of the division on the amendment to Bill C-7 to be applied in reverse of the division on Bill C-17.

[The Speaker]

I am sure you all heard the motion and understand it. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

If there is unanimous consent for the House to divide immediately on the main motion on Bill C-7, I ask that the results of the division be applied in the same manner as the division taken on Bill C-17.

[The Speaker]

Agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 32.]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, on April 14, I put a question to the Prime Minister and reminded him that the Premier of Quebec said:

Job training is, according to Quebec's traditional position, a basic issue of respect for our jurisdiction over what affects us directly.

And I asked him:

Given these statements...does the Prime Minister still think that Quebec's demands are mere whims?

Madam Speaker, the Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously in favour of the following resolution:

That the Quebec National Assembly ask Mr. Jean Chrétien and the federal Liberal government to abide by the unanimous consensus of all parties in Quebec on the need for Quebec to exercise exclusively its jurisdiction over manpower training.

Madam Speaker, considering the current situation, this unanimous resolution demonstrates the very serious concern of all Quebec's elected representatives for the manpower training issue.

There is more, however. Since then, we have heard statements from other important sources in Quebec. This morning I read in the Quebec media that the Forum pour l'emploi is opposed to Ottawa's centralist policies. Who does the Forum pour l'emploi represent? The Forum includes central labour organizations, as one would expect, but it also includes Quebec employer associations. It includes representatives of regional organizations, the Mouvement Desjardins, and just about any organization that is connected with job issues.

Finally, Claude Masson, a respected editorial writer in Quebec, who seldom shares the views of the Official Opposition, made some comments in La Presse which I would like to read to the Prime Minister before he answers my question. Mr. Masson said, in referring to manpower training:

If governments,as they keep repeating ad nauseam , really want to serve the public and at the same time substantially reduce public spending, it makes good sense to have only one government in charge of manpower training, and the government that is closest to the workers, the unemployed and people on welfare and knows best what they need and what it can offer them is the provincial government, in this case the Government of Quebec. This is not a matter of ideology but of common sense, not a constitutional choice but a practical and realistic one.

Madam Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that by reviving disputes between Quebec City and Ottawa on an issue that is the subject of unanimous agreement in Quebec, he not only gives his centralizing vision precedence over the interests of the unemployed but also clearly shows to all Quebecers-federalists and others-that the only federalism possible for them is one of confrontation and scorn for their people?

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, clearly the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over unemployment insurance. Much of what we do in the labour market area is based on that responsibility: for example, employment services, counselling, training and labour mobility programs.

Specifically our employment services and the programs and services flowing from these are adjuncts to the UI program. They go hand in hand with UI to reduce costs primarily by getting claimants off UI as quickly as possible and keeping them off UI as long as possible.

Continued federal intervention in this area is a legitimate exercise of jurisdiction. Virtually every jurisdiction in the world which has an unemployment insurance program has associated with it an unemployment service as well as other active programming to help the unemployed return to gainful employment quickly. Federal interventions in the labour market help people avoid claiming UI either in the short term or the long term and reduce the costs of UI by shortening the duration of claims either in the short term or the long term. This applies regardless of

whether funding is channelled through the UI account directly or whether these programs are funded by tax dollars.

Nevertheless all government have agreed that we need to find ways to co-operate more in order to provide better service to clients, to increase efficiency and to eliminate any duplication that may exist.

The federal government is actively pursuing agreements to achieve this end even while the reform of social security is under way. Any major changes in labour market roles and responsibilities of governments will be based on the outcome of the comprehensive social security review.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, on January 26 and March 10, I put questions in this House to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concerning the plight of approximately 50 Salvadorian refugees in Montreal who are facing the threat of deportation to their native country. Despite my pressing the point, no action has been taken and the problem remains unresolved to this day.

Yet, my request that this group of individuals be granted permanent resident status on humanitarian grounds was and remains extremely legitimate. If these individuals were forced to return to their country of origin, their safety and their lives would be placed in danger.

Moreover, on December 19, 1993, the minister's colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, recognized himself that political violence was again on this rise in El Salvador. Several reports by the human rights commission of this country, by the UN and by Amnesty International have all reached the same dramatic and incontrovertible conclusion: El Salvador's death squads are still active.

I myself travelled to that country and stayed there from March 15 to 22 last as part of a Canadian mission to observe elections that were taking place. My colleagues and I saw that life in that country had by no means returned to normal. During the election campaign, over 30 people were murdered.

Moreover, we saw firsthand that the peace agreements concluded under the auspices of the UN had been violated and that numerous election irregularities had occurred.

On March 10, I urged the minister to take the time to meet this group of Salvadorian refugees to learn firsthand how grave the situation had become. This group had taken the time to travel to Ottawa from Montreal. Despite giving the minister prior notification, he steadfastly refused to meet the Salvadorians.

I am asking the minister again today to grant permanent resident status to these 50 refugees living under the threat of deportation. I also want to take this opportunity to call to his attention the apparently forgotten case of another young Salvadorian refugee, Mr. Mauricio Flores Romero, who took refuge five months ago in the basement of a Calgary church where he has been living ever since under far from auspicious conditions.

I visited this young man last February. Every member of his family, except for him, has been granted refugee status. I was deeply touched by this meeting. His application is very legitimate. Once again, I ask the government to have some compassion for this claimant.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, officials with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration met with representatives of the Centre de Développement Salvadorien to discuss this issue on three separate occasions: January 31, February 15 and March 3.

As a result of these meetings we made two commitments to the organization and to the Salvadoran community in Canada. First, all Salvadorans facing removal from Canada would have their cases reviewed to ensure they would not be at risk if returned to El Salvador. Second, officials who conduct these reviews would be in possession of the most recent, up to date information on country conditions and political events in El Salvador. We have delivered on these commitments.

All unsuccessful refugee claimants from El Salvador facing removal from Canada benefit from an extra review in addition to the current post claim determination review. Each case is reviewed to ensure that they will not be at risk if returned to El Salvador. In addition, we have ensured that officials are kept informed of the country conditions through reports and bulletins of human rights organizations, the United Nations observer mission in El Salvador, and information from our representatives in Central America.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the fundamental issue here is refugee protection, not immigration. At some point, we have to accept the decisions handed down in the course of this process. Our refugee determination system is recognized as one of the fairest and most generous in the world.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, on March 18, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister if she could promise on behalf of the government to implement the recommendation of Canada 21 Council, a committee charged with reviewing Canada's defence policy that recommends building in Canada three support ships for humanitarian aid and peacekeeping. I also

asked the Deputy Prime Minister if she could promise to give the MIL Davie shipyards the mandate to develop the "smart" ship, which could effectively support Canada's peacekeeping efforts.

Unfortunately for the thousands of MIL Davie workers threatened with job loss who need a little hope, we only had a vague answer like "we are looking into it". That is tragic, but it is always the same answer with this government. We ask questions, but they go unanswered. When we get answers, for example in the case of the Magdalen Islands ferry, we are promised an answer in two months, but the time goes by and still no answer. I hope that in the "smart" ship case, the government will be diligent for once.

You should know that the Canadian navy's AOR-type supply and logistical support ships are coming to the end of their life. Moreover, these three ships are not equipped for humanitarian support and peace missions. For example, Canada must now rent foreign ships to transport the vehicles, equipment and supplies needed to support our troops overseas. It usually takes several weeks before these ships are available to begin to take on the materiel our soldiers need.

The MIL Davie shipyard already has a solution for this problem with its project for a versatile strategic transport and supply ship, known as the "smart" ship. For peacekeeping operations, a single "smart" ship can carry a mechanized battalion group including 70 armored troop carriers, 21 tanks, 96 trucks, 8 M-109 armored self-propelled howitzers, 50 jeeps and 50 trailers, together with 300 tonnes of munitions and the fuel required for the vehicles.

In another configuration, a single "smart" ship can provide the support needed for airborne operations with 600 infantry soldiers and 24 transport helicopters that can be used for refugee evacuation in particular. With a different configuration, the "smart" ship can transport everything required to operate an air base for 24 CF-18s, which would have been very useful for our forces during the gulf war, for example.

In the event of a natural disaster, the "smart" ship can be quickly modified to transport a range of vehicles such as ambulances, trucks, materials, construction equipment, water tanks, fuel and bridge-building equipment. Up to 192 containers can fit on the main deck and be loaded with food, clothing, tents and other supplies. These ships would have been very useful in Somalia or when Hurricane Andrew hit Florida a few years ago.

In case of a spill at sea, the "smart" ship can carry small clean-up boats to do the job. It can also carry clean-up equipment such as chemical dispersants and material to contain and absorb the spill. Its huge storage tanks can also be used to hold the recovered hydrocarbons. It can accommodate a 600-person clean-up crew and be used as a command, control and communication ship.

I hope that this time, faced with these facts, the federal government will stop dragging its feet when we propose a project that meets the new realities of today's world. Above all, do not give us answers like the one from the Minister of Transport in a letter sent a few weeks ago to the City of Lévis, talking about a business plan that had already been filed a year ago.

So we hope that the person representing the minister today will be able to give us a clearer and more definite answer.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question and the interest of where he is coming from.

He is out to get support for the hundreds of workers in his riding. As somebody who has over 6,000 fishermen and plant workers unemployed, and it looks like they will be for the next five years, I can certainly identify with the thrust of his question.

I responded to the first part of his question the day he asked it in March. What gave rise to his question was one of the recommendations made by the Canada 21 report. The Canada 21 Council submitted a very thought provoking report which is still being reported on in the media and is among the first of many submissions the government hopes to receive over the course of the defence policy review.

The hon. member's question concerned the recommendation that the planned acquisition of three submarines be cancelled and replaced by the purchase of three peacekeeping support multi-role replenishment ships, that he so adequately describes, from domestic shipyards. His proposal of course is to give MIL Davie a mandate to develop these ships.

The Canada 21 recommendation is a very complex one. The report is complex, and this particular recommendation prompts questions abut the need for peacekeeping and more specifically the future of Canada's defence policy.

As I stand here this evening the special joint committee is meeting in an adjacent room. They are addressing the future of Canada's defence policy and precisely this kind of question.

As the Prime Minister suggested and indeed stated in November when speaking of the defence review it is on the basis of the conclusion of such a review that the government will best determine the long term requirements, including equipment, for our forces.

There are some recommendations in the report that simply must await the outcome of the policy review and this is one of them.

Certain things about the report are of a different nature. For example the government was in total agreement that a defence policy review was necessary and indeed had embarked on it before the recommendation was made. There are some other recommendations, for example in the case of the defence infrastructure and the reduction of the headquarters staffs where the government is in basic agreement with the council and has already taken action.

The response to the hon. member is that I can understand where his suggestion is coming from, but he will have to wait until the defence policy review is completed by the end of this year. I would say there will be decisions forthcoming in the new year after the review.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have spoken in this House many times to express my growing concern about the lack of financial resources needed by the commission of inquiry on tainted blood for Mr. Justice Krever to get to the bottom of this outright scandal.

Judge Krever himself told the daily La Presse on November 24, 1993, that the funds granted to the commission and to the Canadian Hemophilia Society were clearly insufficient and that it would be difficult to show what really happened in this tainted blood affair.

The time has come to give more money to this commission and the Canadian Hemophilia Society.

But every time I spoke in this House to ask the minister to act or to grant the funds essential to the proper operation of this commission, she always repeated the same thing, that the request was being considered by Treasury Board and a decision would be made as soon as possible.

How can the minister justify the government's slowness to allocate more funds? What are the minister's intentions on this? These questions are unanswered.

The minister should realize sooner or later that her inaction has and will have a major impact on the work of this commission and its findings. For example, the Canadian Hemophilia Society, the only real defender of the victims of the scandal, is now financially unable to send one of its members to follow all the proceedings of the commission of inquiry.

Who is in a better position than a member of the Canadian Hemophilia Society, which knows every aspect of this affair, to follow it up and properly inform the lawyers on location? However, the inaction of the minister and her government does not allow it and deprives the least fortunate victims of an opportunity to defend themselves in the same way as those who hold economic and political power.

The democratic principle whereby all are equal before the law is being violated, this time with the consent of the minister and her government. Even worse, neither the minister nor the Prime Minister have seen fit to act on the many distress signals from the Canadian Hemophilia Society.

Do the government and the health minister really care about their citizens' welfare? Indeed, do they have something to hide about this shameful saga, one unworthy of a modern society? Why are the minister and her department systematically obstructing the repeated requests of the Canadian Hemophilia Society and thus making any openness in this case impossible?

Need I remind you that lack of openness will leave a bitter memory for all the victims of tainted blood and their families. These victims are entitled to know the circumstances surrounding this scandal and this is the government's and the minister's responsibility. No one has a right to hide the truth and to silence anyone who could clear up this horrible nightmare.

It would be in the minister's interest to speak out clearly and as soon as possible on granting additional funds for the inquiry on tainted blood and for the Canadian Hemophilia Society, as requested by Mr. Justice Krever, so that justice can be done.

My question is simple: what is the minister waiting for to act?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is the health critic for the opposition and therefore she is aware of the complexity of the issues surrounding the blood inquiry by Justice Krever.

She is also aware that it was the federal government and the Ministry of Health that has with the provincial governments put forward the money initially and has helped and assisted in every way for the Krever commission to occur.

Therefore, we are very supportive. We are anxious and we are willing to find out what the commission has to say.

The commission has been meeting in many cities across the country and is still doing so. It is getting very valuable information. Therefore, at this time the commission is not in any way impaired due to lack of funds or due to lack of resources. While we are speaking now officials from the Ministry of Health are discussing what to do for future funding.

In the meantime I would like to stress that the commission is carrying on. It is still able to listen to evidence with all the resources that are necessary for it to function at this time.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, on March 18, after the tabling of the annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commissioner Mr. Max Yalden, I put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, whose reply was unsatisfactory.

In his report, the Human Rights Commissioner was very critical of the way native people were treated by the Government of Canada under the Indian Act.

I do not think one has to be an expert on Amerindian issues to realize that aboriginal people in Canada often suffer job discrimination, that they live in a state of forced dependency on the federal government as a result of the Indian Act and face a number of social problems that merely reinforce the prejudice against native people. We do not need learned studies to realize that significant changes are urgently needed to improve their living conditions.

In response to my question in about the strategy and concrete measures the government had in mind to correct a situation that was both deplorable and well known, the Deputy Prime Minister merely replied that her government was negotiating agreements with aboriginal peoples aimed at granting them a form of self-government, and that as a result of this process the department of Indian affairs could ultimately disappear.

Aboriginal nations, Quebecers and Canadians expect more specific answers from the government when discussing issues that are so important to the future of these communities. Although it has plans to conclude an agreement with aboriginal peoples involving their inherent right to self-government, the Government of Canada, through its minister of Indian affairs, is dragging its feet, avoids answering the questions and refuses to be specific about the form aboriginal governments will take.

Will these governments be constituted along ethnic lines? Will they have specific and exclusive territories? Will they have legal and fiscal powers? Will they be able to sign agreements with other governments? There is complete confusion and uncertainty about these issues which are extremely important to the country, and that is because the government just keeps repeating that negotiations are under way with various aboriginal nations.

We want to be informed about the negotiating process. We want to know about the Government of Canada's definition of native self-government.

Finally, considering the recommendations of the Human Rights Commissioner who indicated in his report that the Indian Act encourages the dependency and marginalization of aboriginal peoples, could the Minister tell the House what specific measures he has in mind to put an end to the social and economic problems created by this paternalistic legislation?

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]

I am pleased to respond to the question raised by the hon. member for Jonquière on March 18. The answer to his question about the federal government's strategy for implementing the recommendations made in the Human Rights Commission's report can be found in the red book, otherwise known as "Creating Opportunity: the Liberal Plan for Canada".

He has to understand that it took many years to get to the stage where we are now starting to discuss self-government issues with the aboriginal groups of Canada. It is going to take some time to get agreement from the different aboriginal groups whether they are Indian, Inuit or Métis. He has to understand it is going to take some time. It took us an awful lot of time to get to the stage of what he calls complete confusion. It is going to take a while to try to sort out that confusion. I ask the hon. member to be patient and assure him that we are working on those things.

The federal government's red book has identified many of the same issues as those outlined in the commission's report: the aboriginal right to self-government, land claims, the Indian Act and aboriginal justice. These are priority areas which the federal government has dedicated itself to working on in partnership with aboriginal people. Together we must find solutions that will lead to improvement in the economic and social conditions in First Nations communities.

The federal government is acting on the premise that the inherent right to self-government is an existing right in the Constitution. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as I said earlier, has initiated a discussion process with aboriginal leaders and leaders of the provincial and territorial governments.

Following these discussions the federal government intends to translate its policy intent into concrete action. When aboriginal people assume more control over their own lives, we will be in a much better position to make the kind of changes that will work best in our communities.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 7 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)