Debates of Feb. 28th, 2002

Supply

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Mississauga, I just want to express my views on this subject. I had the opportunity not too long ago to go on a street patrol at night to deliver food and medicine, as well as cigarettes, to people who were homeless. How ever we talk about poverty in Canada, it is not until we travel to other parts of the world that we realize what poverty is.

Less than 48 hours ago I came back from the border of Afghanistan at the Khyber Pass. This is what real poverty is all about. This global village that we know, this Earth of ours, is certainly failing. Only 25 trucks daily go through the Khyber Pass to deliver humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan in the southeast corner.

Poverty in Canada is indeed something that we should have in mind, but we should also look at where we, the humanitarians of this world, are failing our brethren in other parts of the world. I brought this to the attention of the ministers for CIDA and external affairs, and I hope that we will start eradicating poverty in Toronto in the immediate future and hopefully in other parts of the world.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments and input from the hon. member. He is quite right. Back in 1989, when the House first seriously dealt with the issue of child poverty in a resolution to seek to achieve the elimination of poverty, I read the speeches. They talked about food, clothing and shelter. The context of the debate was that we should not have food, clothing and shelter deprivation for our kids.

Now it is different. Campaign 2000 today has put out a brochure which says that a child lives in poverty if he or she cannot afford a birthday gift equivalent to those of the other kids who go to the party. Poverty does have to be defined.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: The hon. member for Yorkton--Melville, Firearms Registry.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this 12 point resolution presented by the New Democratic Party. I will point out immediately that we in the Bloc Quebec are not here to save Canada or to have anything to do with Canadian nation building. I think that our purpose here has always been clear.

It would seem that on the other side of the House, and among the NDP as well, it has not yet been grasped that the Bloc Quebecois is here for one and only one purpose, which is of course to defend the interests of Quebec until Quebec attains its sovereign state status.

We have never deviated from that path. We are highly enthusiastic about building a country, Quebec. I can understand the enthusiasm of the Canadian nationalists such as my NDP colleagues to build a better country.

I will, if I may, address one by one the points submitted by the NDP, with a few comments and criticisms as well of the government's actions.

The first point addresses reinforcement of the environmental heritage and signature of the Kyoto protocol. We support this. If Quebec were a sovereign country, we would long ago have ratified the Kyoto agreements. Moreover, the National Assembly has already passed a unanimous motion on this. As well, Quebec has already signed a protocol on stabilizing CO

2

emissions.

We hope Canada will do the same, and that it shares Quebec's desire for a healthier environment and a desire to pass on to our children an environmental heritage that is more respectful of sustainable development.

The second point reads:

Strengthen the role of Aboriginal, Métis and Inuit people in the Canadian family.

Once again, and I do not point this out to be cynical, Quebec, a sovereign state of Quebec—and we did not wait to become that before acting—will reflect modernity and equality in its dealings with the aboriginal nations. I would, moreover, remind my Canadian friends that Quebec, under the Lévesque government, was the first to sign an historical agreement with the James Bay Cree.

Recently, another historic agreement was signed between the Quebec and Cree nations as equals. The following are extracts from this agreement concluded on February 7 between Quebec Premier Bernard Landry and the Grand Chief of the Grand Council of the Crees, Ted Moses, in Waskaganish.

On this occasion, Premier Landry said:

The signing of this agreement between our two peoples paves the way for co-operation based on mutual respect, dialogue and trust. In many respects, our two nations are innovating and leading the way. Other countries are already watching us. This is an unique opportunity to show them our desire and determination to turn this partnership into an outstanding success.

I would also like to quote Grand Chief Ted Moses. At the signing of this historic agreement between the Quebec and Cree nations, he said:

The Cree nation is entering the 21st century with a new spirit and many challenges. The agreement signed today represents the end of the Crees' struggle for the recognition of their rights. Premier Landry and myself have decided to put the weight of history behind us in order to develop a more harmonious relationship.

We must pay tribute to such an historic agreement, which should serve as an example to Canadians on how to build a country.

The third point in the New Democratic Party's plan is, and I quote:

Reaffirm Canada's international peace keeping role and rehabilitate Canada's reputation as respected internationalists.

It is true that this is something Canada needs badly.

One only has to watch the Minister of National Defence act regarding the conflict in Afghanistan, or listen to the Minister of Foreign Affairs contradict himself, to realize that, in the end, they do not control anything. Canada is losing what little credibility it had left since this government was elected, because it did not make international relations a priority.

They are tarnishing the image of Canada and that of Lester Pearson, who helped create the peacekeeping forces through his initiative. It is a shame that Canada has become merely a secondary partner, which blindly complies with the decisions made by the United States, not even knowing what is happening on the international scene regarding a conflict as serious as the one in Afghanistan.

In terms of international aid, this is truly a disgrace. While Pearson himself suggested and supported the objective of allocating 0.7% of the GDP to international aid, we are still contributing only 0.26%. At this rate, Canada will never reach the objective that it claims to want to achieve. That is a disgrace.

Naturally, we hope that Canada will gain back some of its importance on the international scene, but having attended the recent Davos conference in New York City, I can say that the Quebec delegation was right up there with the world's top international delegations, and it made me proud.

It goes without saying that we can only endorse point No. 4, which reads as follows:

Re-establish the federal government as full partner in funding health care and post-secondary education as public, not-for-profit systems.

In the current context, I think that the New Democrats have a lot of work to do to achieve the fourth objective in their plan. I also deplore their attitude about this issue.

Of course, in recent years the government made savage cuts to transfers for health and education. However, I can only deplore the fact that the New Democrats are again asking the government to tie Canada-wide national standards to the federal contribution, while refusing any discussion on decentralization and on the transfer of tax points, which would allow the provinces, and the Quebec government, to fully control their provincial jurisdictions.

I can only regret the government's attitude in slashing transfer payments for health, post-secondary education and income support. I also regret its closed mindedness about any proposal that would make it possible for the government of Quebec and the provinces to have more funding for these essential public services, in keeping with their constitutional responsibility.

I also regret the fact that we are in a situation where the federal government is even being encouraged to use a big stick. Even if it contributes a mere 14 cents of every dollar invested in health, and 8 cents for every dollar invested in education, the NDP continues to be in favour of centralization, of a strong central government wielding a big stick over the provinces.

As for trade agreements, we support the principle of ensuring they “include adequate protection for labour standards, and for human rights and the environment.”

The question needs to be raised. I was very proud of the fact that Quebec was the only province present at the parallel summit in Pôrto Alegre. It was there precisely in order to create a free trade area of the Americas that would fully respect environmental and labour standards and the various human rights and freedoms.

But where were the other provinces? Where were the Canadian representatives, where were the New Democrats with their concern for these principles? Some of my colleagues paid out of their pockets to go to Pôrto Alegre to make their concerns known about a better world and the creation of a zone encompassing the three Americas, a free trade area that would respect the human aspect. Where was the NDP, where were the Liberals, where were the members of the other parties that sit in this House?

We in the Bloc Quebecois were there along with the representatives of the government of Quebec. These, moreover, were the only representatives of a government that is still taking action within Canada.

As far as the point about agricultural producers goes, we are in agreement. In Canada, as in Quebec, agricultural producers are the victims of international subsidies, particularly those provided by the United States and by Europe. There is a price and subsidy war going on. This war had abated somewhat in recent years, but it has returned with a vengeance.

The government has been more Catholic than the Pope, as the expression goes, and forced farmers to accept drastic cuts in their subsidies, only to find themselves in a tough spot compared to American and European farmers who continue to be heavily subsidized.

In a sovereign Quebec, we will support, as we do today, this kind of principle of international equity with respect to agricultural support.

Since my time is up, I am prepared to respond to questions and comments from my colleagues.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to elaborate on a couple of points.

As recently as this afternoon in question period our House leader spoke out on the fact that this federal-provincial taxation matter affects the province of Quebec as well as the province of Manitoba and others. He also pointed to the need for the federal government to correct that. This matter of decentralization needs to be placed in some context.

I think the member is factually wrong. My colleague from Burnaby--Douglas was indeed in Porto Alegre earlier this month at the people's summit. I do not know if any representatives from the government party were there.

Given my colleague's knowledge on the subject, I was surprised that he did not deal with the item about fair taxes and sound monetary policy and in particular the matter of U.S. dollarization. I wonder if we could hear the wisdom of his comments on those points.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague wholeheartedly for allowing me to address these issues; I did not have enough time to deal with these fundamental issues.

With respect to tax policy, tax justice—and incidentally, this is a concept for which we have advocated since we arrived here in 1993—the Bloc Quebecois has always advocated for fairness when it comes to taxation. We were the only ones, the only party in the House of Commons—a sovereignist party—the only sovereignist party to propose any tax reforms, while waiting for Quebec to become independent. It is important to remember that one quarter of all income taxes that make their way here come from Quebec.

We are the only ones to have tabled two reports: one report proposing ways to reform the personal income tax system and another proposing ways to make corporate taxes fairer and more efficient. This has always been one of our major concerns. Incidentally, we led the fight against the transfer of two family trust funds to the United States, funds worth $2 billion that were exempted from taxes. This means that more than $400 million in taxes were lost due to this government's inaction. We were the only ones that stepped up to the bat to fight against this.

We were also the only ones to step up to the bat and denounce the Minister of Finance, who has companies in countries that are considered tax havens, including Barbados, which was singled out by the OECD as a country where tax evasion is promoted and where it is easy to launder money. We asked that the tax treaties signed between Barbados and the Government of Canada be denounced; the Minister of Finance always refused. I understand; when you are judge and jury, why get rid of something that is working for you and that serves your interests?

On this, it is hard to find fault with us, and we support you, particularly when you talk about greater tax justice.

Finally, the issue of dollarization. We support a single currency for the three Americas. I will tell you why quickly.

First, it is impossible to continue the trend that began some 30 years ago. Structurally speaking, the value of the Canadian dollar is constantly diminishing. There is a downward trend. It is a matter of competitiveness for businesses. The value of the Canadian dollar is going down to adjust our relative competitiveness with American companies, so as to promote our exports in a natural way.

Businesses are somewhat cramped by this. They rely on a lower value of the Canadian dollar to maintain their competitiveness. However, this cannot go on forever. This can no longer work with a dollar that is worth 62 cents. How low will we let it go? Down to 35 cents, 30 cents, 25 cents? Will we find ourselves with funny money before the other side wakes up? This is totally ridiculous.

Second, let us not forget that two and a half years ago, we were the only ones talking about the instability of the Canadian dollar. I tell nationalist Canadians to stop considering the Canadian dollar as a strong symbol of Canadian nationalism. This does not make sense. It is a matter of economic survival. The Canadian dollar is a secondary currency on the monetary market and it is the victim of speculators.

Two and a half years ago, its value dropped by 20% at once. There was a 20% drop over a four day period. It went back up a bit, but imagine those who work in businesses, those who must plan their investments based on the prospect of making profits, without knowing what the Canadian dollar will be worth in two months? This does not make any sense.

This is why we must do some thinking and get ready for a single currency. We should stop burying our heads in the sand in the name of a bogus nationalism that is artificially maintained by symbols that do not make sense.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to split my time with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot.

When I read the motion put forward by the NDP, I said to myself that it contained many good intentions and certainly a number of principles that we share. However, constitutionally, it is flawed.

I would respectfully submit that the difference between the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP, if one must be found, is that although we are both motivated by generosity in the way we want the government to intervene in people's lives and in the way we want wealth to be redistributed, my party believes that the right governments must be made accountable. I believe that this is a fundamental difference. It is not enough in politics to want something to happen and just assume that it is not a concern for those who must implement it.

In January or February, I myself attended the NDP convention, having many friends in that party. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have friends everywhere, and I am very proud to count you among. When I attended the NDP convention, I followed the proceedings and I was very surprised to see just how centralizing their thinking was.

I respect this in a democratic framework but, God knows, it is not something the Bloc Quebecois would go for. Delegates passed a resolution calling for the creation of a department of urban affairs that would deal directly with municipalities. This is obviously a notion which appears in one of the 12 points before us, in connection with infrastructure.

Delegates also passed a resolution calling for a national early childhood policy. Clearly, interference can go pretty far. Ultimately, the various provincial governments—we use the term “national” in speaking about the government of Quebec—could be reduced to nothing more than gigantic municipalities. We do not think that this would be in Quebec's best interests.

Once again, this is not to deny the generosity of the principles put forward in a motion such as the NDP's, but we must think about who is going to have to implement them. I think that this is a very important part of the Bloc Quebecois's position.

I will start with the issue that concerns me the most, and probably the one with which I am most familiar, namely health.

This morning, I had the opportunity to speak with Roy Romanow, the former premier of Saskatchewan, who was also justice minister and deputy premier of his province and, most importantly, intergovernmental affairs minister at the time of the patriation of the constitution. In fact, I told him jokingly “Today, you are concerned with surgical knives, but there was a time when you were more concerned with long knives”.

I do not know if he appreciated my sense of humour, but I was obviously referring to his involvement in that issue. Quebecers remember him. I saw him on television. It was in 1981, and I was 19 years old at the time. He had close ties with the government of the present Prime Minister, and it is well known that he worked very overtly, but also very covertly, to negotiate a constitutional system that was rejected by the National Assembly and by all parties represented in the National Assembly.

This morning, I met Mr. Romanow in parliamentary committee. We know how the government shamelessly set up a royal commission headed by a commissioner. The mandate of this royal commission is to review Canada's health care system.

I asked him “Do you not feel a certain lack of legitimacy, from a constitutional standpoint, to find yourself in a position where the government would give you such a mandate?”

In 1957, when hospital insurance was first introduced—members will recall that it was first introduced in western Canada—the federal government had made the commitment to finance the various hospital insurance plans on a 50-50 basis. It started in western Canada and spread to the other provinces, including Quebec. However, Quebec later withdrew and set up its own hospital insurance plan.

Moreover, it is not without significance that the father of hospital insurance in Quebec, Mr. Castonguay, who was a Liberal minister during the Quiet Revolution, wrote in La Presse the other day that the government was responsible for the problems being experienced by the provinces, because his estimation of the value of the federal government's withdrawal was nearly $30 billion.

In the health field alone, our estimate is $14 billion, yet the father of Quebec hospital insurance, who cannot be accused of being sovereignist, has delivered a verdict with a lucidity that should win over the Liberals.

I told Mr. Romanow “You would have had far more legitimacy if you had been put in charge of a commission of inquiry, and if the federal government had always respected its historical commitments”. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot has rightly reminded us that, for every dollar spent on health by the provinces, the federal government provides 14 cents, whereas historically that amount ought to be 50 cents.

Hon. members will recall that, in 2000, all provincial first ministers, regardless of political persuasion, called upon the federal government to restore transfer payments to at least their 1993-94 level, which would be 18 cents on the dollar. This would have made the figure for 2005 not $21 billion but $28.9 billion. This is a battle which the Bloc Quebecois of course supports most enthusiastically in the House.

We have always pointed out that we do not need the federal government telling us how to reorganize the health system. Moreover, in committee this morning, I made a deposition which I would be happy to repeat here for those who are interested. I said that seven out of ten provinces had already had task forces to analyze the major changes. They do not say that the status quo is acceptable, they do not say that there will be no changes in the way the delivery of health services will be organized, but they do say that this debate is not up to the federal government.

The federal government is responsible for transfer payments and sharing resources. It has a fiduciary responsibility to First Nations. It is responsible for defence. It is responsible for epidemics and quarantines as well as approving drugs. However, it does not have any direct responsibility, except for this clientele, for service delivery.

How legitimate can the Romanow commission be when Quebec already has the Clair report and that the provinces as a whole have already done their work in the matter?

It just happens that my gently Bolshevik NDP friends are proposing more national standards and that the federal government be even more centralizing than in the past. Unfortunately, such a position cannot be supported by the Bloc Quebecois.

I take the opportunity of the distinguished presence of the member for Jonquière to talk about regional development. She will correct me if my figures are wrong, but during the last election campaign the Liberals, under the direction of the Prime Minister and also the current justice minister and immigration minister, made promises to the tune of $3.5 billion. This is not peanuts.

This is Duplessis style politics, a kind of benign patronage that has been the norm on the government side. It made commitments to the tune of $3.5 billion and, in its most recent budget, it offered a $108 million strategic infrastructure program to build roads.

It earmarked 4% for roads, when it promised $3.5 billion. I believe the time when it could shamelessly think it would not have to be acountable and that the people in Quebec could be tricked by all kinds of election promises is gone. Do you know why it is gone? Because the Bloc Quebecois is here to stand up for Quebec, to look after its interests.

I sat to the government that together with the member for Jonquière and all the other Bloc Quebecois members, we will not accept that it does not keep its election promises and does not follow through on them.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to allow the member an opportunity to elaborate on his point on health care regarding decentralization. I will not argue about Quebec's position on this. I put it to him that we are a large diverse country where there are some very poor provinces, relatively speaking, compared with others that are economically better off, more self-sufficient and more resourceful.

The point I am making is, by taking his approach about greater decentralization, how can we ever avoid becoming a checkerboard nation where we have a hodgepodge of arrangements in terms of our health care system? Our health care system is something that Canadians believe in overwhelmingly and want to see continue to the best of our abilities. How can we do that if everybody is allowed to do their own thing, as it were, in terms of administering the health care system if there is not sufficient resources and if there is not somebody with a stick? We can debate about how heavy that piece of lumber should be. How do we do it and still maintain something that we can call universal, equal and egalitarian and not really a two tier or perhaps a ten tier system of health care?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, let us not forget that, historically, in 1984—the act was passed in 1985 but was introduced in 1984—the Canada Health Act was declared valid. It was declared constitutional not so much because of its five principles, but because of the spending power issue. It is because the federal government has such spending power that the Canada Health Act exists.

If there were no spending power, constitutionally, one cannot be sure that the Canada Health Act, with the five principles that we know, would have withstood a court challenge.

I want to tell my colleague that if the provinces have different health care systems, it will be the provincial governments that will be accountable to the voters. If voters in Nova Scotia feel that the health care system in place in their province does not meet their expectations, they can choose a government that will do a better job in that regard. I do not think that it is constitutionally and politically desirable that this be a federal responsibility.

Is my colleague not concerned? Over the last few years, what role has the federal government played with regard to health, apart from anything that has to do with the military, the approval of drugs and quarantine? It has destabilized the provinces.

On page 28, the Romanow report recognizes that this situation is not desirable. We must move toward a situation where the Government of Canada honours its constitutional obligation, which is the allocation of financial resources.

Regarding health plans, regarding the delivery of health care and the role of regional boards, I am sorry but this is not the federal government's responsibility. It is a fact that has to be accepted.

Does it mean that we cannot be sorry that Newfoundland and Quebec do not have exactly the same health care system? Perhaps we should be sorry, but not to the point of wishing for the federal government to interfere in areas that, once again, are outside its jurisdiction.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the 12 point plan to save Canada by the member for Halifax, the leader of the NDP, it brought to mind the 12 point plan to save the countries of the world from future wars brought forward by the then president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, after the first world war. His 12 point plan would have been very good had his country been implicated in it. A lot of his 12 points were not realistic and some of them were rather self-evident.

However, let us deal with the motion that is before us. Number 9 of the NDP's 12 point plan states:

Celebrate immigration as a cornerstone of Canada, restoring respect for diversity and humanity in our immigration practices.

I have always believed we did that but that is beside the point.

I was a little surprised by the motion introduced by the hon. member. I am sure she has attended an oath-swearing ceremony for new Canadian citizens. She has certainly witnessed the extraordinary ties that develop between Canadians and these new citizens. An extensive network of volunteers is the basis for their integration. We do not need a 12 point plan to tell our fellow Canadians how they should behave. Canadians already know what is appropriate.

We have a long tradition of welcoming newcomers and helping them feel at home in their new country. Indeed, the Canadian way is so effective that a number of other countries are interested in knowing more about it. As concerns immigration, Canadians are an example for all to follow, although improvements are always possible.

The Canadian government celebrates immigration and diversity each time it holds an oath-swearing ceremony welcoming new Canadians into our great family. The hon. member could feel the joy that permeates this kind of ceremony and she could feel the deep emotion of witnessing new Canadians swearing their oath.

In October, each year, the Government of Canada celebrates immigration throughout the country during citizenship week. Campaigns like “Welcome Home” and “Canada—All Together” are full of warmth, authenticity, creativity, and so on. They promote respect, freedom, a sense of belonging, and the basic values of the Canadian society.

Nevertheless, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would like to inquire, with all due respect, where the member opposite has been during the debate of the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The new act goes much further than to simply celebrate immigration as a cornerstone of Canada. The government has entrenched not just immigration but its sister notion, refugee protection, in legislation that will, in the matter of a few months, carry the full weight of law. I think those of us who were in committee were witnesses to that fact.

Let us look at some of the stated objectives of the act. Among them were: to enrich and strengthen the social and cultural fabric of Canadian society while respecting the federal, bilingual and multicultural character of the country; to see that families are reunited in Canada; to promote the successful integration of permanent residents into Canada; to support by means of consistent standards and prompt processing, which I believe will be improved with this new law, the attainment of immigration goals; to facilitate the entry of visitors, students and temporary workers; to work in co-operation with the provinces to secure better recognition of the foreign credentials of permanent residents and their more rapid integration; and finally, to promote international justice and security by fostering respect for human rights and by denying access to criminals.

These are only a few of the selected objectives of the act which have entrenched respect for diversity and humanity in our immigration practices. It is plain that there is no need to restore for what is not lost. In case the specific objectives of the act are not clear, let us review the key principles and values that define Canadian society, the same principles and values that defined the process of legislative review.

First, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the test for equality and freedom from discrimination. Is immigration a cornerstone of Canada? What better proof could a person ask for than the charter itself?

There are other principles that define Canada and the new act: respect for the multicultural character of Canada; commitments to human rights, including concordance with international human rights; and the integration of immigrants into Canadian society. On this point the government is committed to working in co-operation with provinces to secure better recognition of the foreign credentials of permanent residents. This will allow immigrants to settle and become established more readily.

Canadians do celebrate immigration. Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind that the intent of the government's immigration legislation is to continue the Canadian tradition of welcoming diversity, not just tolerance but harmony.

There have been ongoing consultations since the bill was introduced, one year ago. The standing committee has heard from more than 100 groups involved in immigration and refugee protection in Ottawa and across the country. The standing committee tabled a report, entitled “Refugee Protection and Border Security”, in the House in March 2000. The title of this report summarizes part of the issues studied by the Government of Canada.

We have seen the objectives and the principles that guided us in order to ensure that the process was open, public and transparent. This process led to the new legislation which is clearly based on the respect of diversity and humanity.

The new legislation simplifies the refugee determination process, but continues to protect the grounds for determining refugee status, refugee status under the Geneva convention: risk of torture, risk to their life or the risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

For years, the reunification of families has been a cornerstone of Canada's immigration policy. This is indeed good, as the family represents a key element in Canadian society, in fact, it constitutes the core of society. It is families that built Canada and that will continue to build Canada in the future. The reunification of families is an integral part of Canada's immigration policy.

Canadians have always thought that immigrants to Canada will settle more easily if they have the support of their extended family. That is why our immigration and refugee protection policies encourage and support the sponsorship of family members. This is a humanitarian gesture.

This bill expands the family class and makes it a fundamental element and one of the main classes of immigrants. For the first time, parents are mentioned in the definition of the family class outlined in the bill.

I believe the new act will facilitate family reunification. It simplifies application for landing spouses, partners and children who are already in Canada legally by creating an in Canada landing class so they do not have to first leave the country to apply. This is a good measure.

I will conclude by saying that our committee has other work but I am convinced that the new immigration law will facilitate the processes we need to readily improve our immigration policies.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the elaboration that the member opposite has made on immigration particularly, but I wonder if he would give us his thoughts, as a veteran member of the House, on a couple of other points that are in our 12 point program, specifically on strengthening the role of aboriginal, Metis and Inuit people in the Canadian family. I would like some elaboration on that because some of us are quite concerned that there has been so little apparent action since the report of the royal commission, Gathering Strength , was released a few years back.

The other point on which I would be interested in hearing from the member would be point number 11, which talks about strengthening pluralistic and democratic discourse by means of appropriate regulation to limit media concentration. Earlier a member from the Alliance had a different spin on that, but we are kind of coming at it from the old Tom Kent notion that there should be a royal commission to deal with media concentration. We are seeing more of it, not less, in the country.

I would be interested in hearing what the hon. member opposite has to say on those two points.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I will address both his points.

First, regarding aboriginal issues, I was impressed by a book I read some years ago called Drum Beat which talked about aboriginals and the problems that exist in Canada. There is no doubt there is room for improvement in the matter.

Needless to say, my knowledge is limited on the subject but the book brought up aspects of the issue I had never known about. It was a bit disturbing to read about the lack of understanding and how aboriginals have been treated in the past. Their culture was established long before we came. When we came along we wanted to fit the original Canadians into our mould.

When we attempted to do this it created many problems, there is no doubt about it. We have a lot to correct in that regard. The problem dates back many years. The fact that we tried to impose our ways did not help much but I think it is an issue we will be able to resolve in time.

Second, point number 11 in the NDP plan talks about media concentration. I have always felt there is a danger to democratic society when media are concentrated in too few hands. In the last couple of years many Canadians have been concerned about the issue including me. If there is any danger in a democracy it is when there is too much concentration. We must be vigilant at all times to make sure it does not happen to us. It is extremely vital for the government to keep an eye on the issue at all times.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion because it gives me a chance to submit a kind of wish list, the 12 things that I would do if I was Prime Minister, so the opposition will just have to bear with me as I go through because they have had their opportunity to say what they would do if they formed the government.

If I led a government on this side what I would first do is reform the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. That is number one. These two bits of legislation, when they were originally introduced, the Access to Information Act in 1983, it was the second piece of legislation of its kind in the world, the second freedom of information legislation.

Now, it is sad to say it is now lagging behind just about every freedom of information legislation elsewhere in the world, and similarly the Privacy Act. It is most important and in the interests of the nation to amend both pieces of legislation in order not only to enhance the public's right to know but to create efficiencies in government in order to make Canada a globally competitive nation.

Secondly, I would write legislation requiring charities to be answerable in terms of transparency and corporate governance. We have a $100 billion industry, actually a $122 billion industry if we count the non profit organizations, that is run without any kind of legislative transparency whatsoever.

We know anecdotally that there are problems all through that industry. We know of small scam charities, but most importantly the large hospitals, the health care institutions in this country which spend some $40 billion a year are charities, and they are not transparent or they are not required to conform to legislative standards of corporate governance. I believe if they were then our problems with financing health care would be solved because we would save billions if only we could rein in the way administrators manage the health care industry. I just in passing point out that the CEO of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, for example, makes $500,000 a year, twice that of the Prime Minister.

Thirdly, I would amend the old Bill C-31, the amendment to the Indian Act that was passed in 1985 that created over 100,000 new Indians, many of them with no connection to reserves, no connections to their Indian heritage whatsoever. It was intended to correct a problem with respect to the spouses of people who married off the reserve. It has created a nightmare where we are now passing in the House race based legislation that discriminates based on race in our urban communities.

I was the only one on this side of the House to vote against the youth justice bill Senate amendments that came to the House because what they did is they required the courts to consider race, whether a person is an aboriginal or not, in sentencing and I would say that is unacceptable.

Fourthly, the federal government must rein in gambling. It is an issue that is not talked about at all in the House anymore but you will remember that a change in the criminal code actually has passed to the provinces this incredible cash cow which is called casino gambling and video lottery terminals. This has now created a $27 billion industry, if we will, that preys on the weaknesses of our fellow Canadians.

I have travelled around the country and I always go to casinos to see what the casinos are like, and each of those casinos preys on a different sector of the community, and for example the casino in Winnipeg has video lottery terminals that are operated by a nickel. In other words, the clientele in Winnipeg is not sufficiently wealthy to put in $1 or $5 so the terminals are directed towards getting the money from the people on social welfare, the really poor people, and so we have nickel terminals and we are creating a massive addiction.

The provinces are pretending that this is okay because they are taking the profits and giving them to charities, and I deplore the fact that charities are financing themselves on money that is obviously coming from people who are either addicted or cannot afford the losses that they incur when they go to casino gambling.

Fifthly, I would change the general federal policy with respect to aboriginal affairs. We have to look at it again because what has happened is that it is not working. I spent three years on the Indian and Northern Affairs committee and my heart really went out to the witnesses from the various aboriginal communities across the country that came to the committee. Something is very, very wrong with our policy because what we are doing is we are creating a culture of dependence rather than a culture of pride. That should be a number one priority for any new government, to actually come back and re-examine where we are going wrong in our aboriginal affairs policy.

Sixth, I would revisit the Supreme Court Act. This parliament forgets that the supreme court is beneath parliament. In other words parliament is the supreme court of this land, not like in the United States. We have the supreme court making decisions when it does not even have a majority of the judges onside, decisions that the Government of Canada interprets as binding decisions, as binding interpretations of the charter of rights and freedoms.

Madam Speaker, I should tell you that the supreme court judges themselves can make these incredibly important decisions based on only three hours of testimony, most of the work actually being done by law clerks. We have to take a look as a parliament and satisfy ourselves that the supreme court is serving the nation the way it must.

Seventh, on that note I think we should return to the Singh decision. The Singh decision was a Supreme Court of Canada minority decision in the mid-1980s that the Government of Canada has used as justification for saying that anyone who lands on Canadian soil, any foreign alien, must be treated as though that person were a citizen and have access to all due processes of law and all the benefits of Canadian society.

Madam Speaker, if you actually examined the Singh decision you would find real doubt that this was the intention of the court at the time, but we have to go back to that because we are one of the few nations in the world where foreign aliens can come onto our soil and have all the rights of citizenship. We have to address that problem because it is causing all kinds of difficulties in immigration and refugee policy.

Number eight, I would take back the tax points that we have given to the provinces on health care. We have to take control of health care in the provinces because what we know as a federal parliament is we are putting money out to the provinces for health care and they are using it in other ways, so we have to get control of health care spending. We have to make the medical health of Canadians a federal responsibility centrally because I believe the provinces are failing in their obligation in that regard, and they are forever saying that the federal government is not giving enough to the provinces but in fact if we took back the tax points that we have given the provinces I think we would more than bring the spending on health care under control, and we could combine that with better transparency with hospital administration.

Number nine, I would declare that Canada is indivisible. I was never comfortable with the clarity bill in its suggestion, and it is a suggestion only, that this House could actually decide that one province or another could walk away from the Confederation. As a government or a prime minister I would say simply that as long as I was around and as long as my government was around this would never be on the table. This is one country.

Number ten, I would dump our equity employment policy and all gender based government programs. Our gender based programs were brought in way back in 1973 as a result of a report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. In 1973 they were undoubtedly relevant but they are not relevant in 2002. I do not believe the women of this country by and large, by the grand large, actually feel that they have to be treated in special fashion. They do not. This is a land in which there is equality of opportunity regardless of gender, and I think it is a disgrace that we suggest that women are in some way inferior and that they have to have special treatment, so I would scrap that entire program.

Concerning number 11, I would dismantle the arm's length agencies like the CRTC. Here again there has been a long policy of the government avoiding its responsibility and its accountability.

The last one is that I would change the oath of citizenship so that it reflected the values of Canadians, the values of the charter of rights and freedoms.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, there were a number of things I would have liked to question the member on.

Let me instead just say that I think Canadians are increasingly concerned about the lack of sovereignty in this country. They are worried about the rate at which our resources are being acquired particularly by American investors. This has been happening for some time, but the rate at which it is happening now in the wake of the Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement is growing cause for alarm. For example, something in the neighbourhood of only 27% of our oil and gas industry is now actually owned and controlled by Canadian companies as the Americans are moving in.

In the 12 points that are related here we can think of the massive subsidies that are being paid to the United States farm agribusiness industry which are not available here in Canada. That is not because we do not have the resources. It is because we do not have the political will to do it, and our farmers are rapidly--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, February 27, 2002, all questions necessary to dispose of the business of supply are deemed put, a recorded division is deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at the end of the period provided for government orders .

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Madam Speaker, if you would seek it, I am sure you would find that there is consent to see the clock as 5.30 p.m. in order to begin private members' business.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is there agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

We will see the clock as 5.30 p.m.

It being 5.30, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Privilege

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege on which I had given prior notice to the Chair. It concerns communications materials that have been put in the public domain that I feel reflect on the dignity of the House.

The first such document is a press release which comes from the Canadian Alliance website. It concerns the ongoing committee deliberations, initiated by the Canadian Alliance and referred by you to the standing committee, on the issue of conflicting statements by the Minister of National Defence. The press release dated February 26 begins by stating:

It is clear that Minister of Defence Art Eggleton deliberately misled the House of Commons when he changed his story about when he knew about the full details of capture and turnover of prisoners--

The press release goes on to quote several hon. members of this Chamber. It states:

“The Minister's feeble defence that he did not fully understand the extent of Canadian involvement has been shot full of holes by a senior military commander,” said Canadian Alliance Foreign Affairs Critic Brian Pallister.

It goes on to state:

“The evidence is now very clear that Minister Eggleton deliberately misled the House of Commons and Canadians,” said Leon Benoit--

[The Speaker]

The hon. parliamentary secretary must refrain from using the names of members in reading. I know he is reading a press release and I know the names appear in the press release. However under the rules of the House we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly and one of the things we cannot do directly is say the name. I know he will want to insert the appropriate nomenclature in his remarks. I let it go once or twice and I think we should stop it.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I thought it was okay if I was quoting. I will refrain from doing it.

It states further:

“The evidence is now very clear that (the Minister of National Defence) deliberately misled the House of Commons...”, said (the member for Lakeland).

(The hon. member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke) added, “I hope that (the Minister of National Defence) will now be willing to come forward and admit that his misleading statements were indeed intentional. Now that his explanation has been contradicted, the right thing to do would be to admit that he deliberately misled the House of Commons, and Canadians”.

I am now quoting from a CBC interview transcript with the hon. member for Lakeland. The questioner asked the hon. member for Lakeland:

We discovered yesterday it took three briefings or three reminders before the Defence Minister clicked, as it were, as to what happened and when. What does that say to you?

The hon. member for Lakeland replied:

Well, I would say what he clicked on is that the Chief of Defence Staff and Deputy Chief of Defence Staff were not going to lie for him on this issue. That's what clicked...The Minister understood things perfectly because he asked questions to clarify. So the Minister knew. He misled Parliament and Canadians through Parliament. To me, that's the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am now quoting from a transcript of February 1 of a media scrum that took place outside the House of Commons foyer. It involves the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar. The question was:

It's a pretty serious charge that the Prime Minister is lying. What evidence do you have?

The member for Portage--Lisgar stated:

--I cannot believe and I would not want the troops and their families to believe that the Prime Minister was totally unaware for over (a) week of an issue so important to Canada and internationally so important.

The next question was:

You're saying more than that, you're saying he's lying are you not?

The answer from the member for Portage--Lisgar:

I'm asserting that he was aware of this information.

Mr. Speaker, I would add that the Prime Minister had denied both in the House and in public that he was not aware and that is a direct public contradiction of the statements by the Prime Minister of Canada.

I am now quoting from another Alliance press release dated February 22. It involves a quote from the member for Portage--Lisgar:

After concealing this controversial information for eight days, the Minister then gave false information to the House of Commons about when he first learned of the event. It defies reason to suggest that this was an innocent coincidence of honest mistakes. All evidence suggests that the Minister deliberately concealed important information, first through silence, and then through false statements.

Mr. Speaker, the collection of information, and it is not an inclusive list, demonstrates that even though when a member brings a question of privilege, at that particular time and during that motion, as I am doing now, the member is allowed to use a term like misleading the House. That language is not allowed in parliament under normal circumstances and the fact that this charge has been made in the House and referred to committee I would suggest does not give licence for members to be repeating these things outside the House. That is one of the issues here.

I am quoting now from Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , second edition by Joseph Maingot, page 254, under the heading “Reflections on Members and on the House”. It states:

Language spoken during a Parliamentary proceeding that impugns the integrity of members would be unparliamentary and a breach of order contrary to the Standing Orders. But not a breach of privilege.

We find that many times in this House, Mr. Speaker, that you are required to point out to members that their language is not appropriate and in most circumstances they retract the statements. Maingot further states:

Spoken outside the House by a Member the same language reflecting on the Member's Parliamentary capacity would be considered contempt of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that members speak outside this place at their own peril.

There is certainly legal recourse that is available to the offended party. I would also suggest that in my reading of procedure, the Canadian precedents as opposed to the U.K. precedents, even if the offended member chooses the courts as a recourse, it does not preclude this issue being undertaken by the House. In my view it is an offence that would simply be corrected by a retraction and an apology by the offending members.

My final point is that I was a little uncomfortable with the timing of this question of privilege. As we are aware, this issue, the larger issue of the conflicting statements which these comments reference is before the procedure and House affairs committee. I would find no issue with putting this off until that committee has completed its work. The reason I brought it forward today was I felt I had an obligation as a member of the House to bring it to the attention of the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, should you find that I have a question of privilege, I would be prepared to move the necessary motion.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your time and indulgence in this matter.

As the member across the way has stated, this issue is being dealt with in committee. I would think that is where it should be dealt with first. Then if necessary, it should come before the House.

I believe the members who were mentioned in the member's question of privilege should have the opportunity to be heard by the Speaker before the decision is made.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to bring to your attention the fact that, without taking a position on the merit of the question that was raised, I find it quite strange that a member of parliament who is also a member of the committee studying the matter would rise a question of privilege in the House at the very moment where this committee is meeting. I am also a member of this committee. To have an informed debate on the question of privilege that was raised, it would have been normal and more courteous to do so when the people involved would have had the opportunity of making themselves heard on this question of privilege in this place before you made a decision.

Therefore, I am extremely disappointed with the behaviour of a member questioning the good faith of other members with regard to their speaking order, when he himself is rising at the very moment when the committee is taking some important decisions concerning the work that lays ahead.

I am not saying this question has no merit. It is up to you to decide. I am simply wondering about this, and I find the member's intentions dubious, because he is rising at a time when all the other colleagues involved are working on the matter.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my voice to that of my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois regarding the timing chosen by the government member to raise this question of privilege. While recognizing of course your authority in this matter, I would remind you that it looks like a case of what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The member gave several examples of things that have been said outside the House about the Minister of National Defence.

May I point out that the Minister of National Defence himself makes comments outside the House, talks to reporters, even says that he is willing to go back before the committee and analyzes the evidence given in committee by the two highest ranked officers at DND. So if there is someone to blame, it should be the Minister of National Defence, who himself talks outside the House about what is going on in committee.

I think it is a matter of credibility. Moreover, it was bad timing to raise this question of privilege at this time. However, I will repeat that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.