Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition.
Lost her last election, in 2006, with 39% of the vote.
Government Response to Petitions February 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition.
Treaties February 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to table under Standing Order 32(2), in both official languages, 31 treaties that entered into force for Canada in the year 2000.
Pursuant to recent practice, I am also tabling CD-ROMs that contain the electronic version of these treaties. These CD-ROMs allow us to reduce paper consumption and they greatly facilitate access to the treaties, through the Library of Parliament.
Exports of Military Equipment February 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I would like to table, in both official languages, the annual report on exports of military equipment from Canada for 2000.
This is the 11th year that we have issued these reports. The measure was conceived as a way of encouraging greater international transparency about sales of military goods. Many other countries have since followed our example with their own reports, but I believe as yet that few of them provide the same standard of information as the Canadian reports.
Questions in the House of Commons February 5th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I will resist the polemics that could lead me down a road I do not think would be useful to this discussion. It is important to note and to mention clearly in our discussion tonight that Canada takes its obligations under the Geneva conventions very seriously.
We continue to work with the Americans and with the other allies to ensure that the provisions of the conventions are respected. We are satisfied that the U.S. is treating the detainees humanely and consistent with the Geneva conventions.
We have requested clarification and expressed our concerns with the U.S. in order to ensure that we are acting together in accordance with international law.
In the interim, for operational reasons Canadian forces orders remain unchanged. We will continue to transfer any detainees to the United States as we have done in the past.
Questions in the House of Commons February 5th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, Canada is in an armed conflict against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. We are exercising our right to self-defence under article 51 of the UN charter and article 5 of the NATO treaty. Respect for international law remains a cornerstone of Canadian foreign policy and our actions will continue to be in keeping with this precept.
Following the tragic events of September 11 Canada joined its neighbour and other countries in forming a coalition in the campaign against terrorism. As part of our military contribution Canada has committed air and naval units as well as ground troops.
Canadian special forces have been present in Afghanistan for some time and members of the PPCLI, the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, have arrived in Kandahar.
Canadians can be very proud of the men and women of the Canadian armed forces who are serving in extremely dangerous and very difficult conditions to protect Canadians and to defend our values.
Canada fully respects international law including the law of armed conflict and our troops are well versed in its requirements. They are trained in how to capture and how to treat prisoners in accordance with international law and particularly in accordance with the Geneva conventions of 1949.
Regardless of a detainee's status international law provides minimum standards to ensure that he or she receives fair and humane treatment.
I assure the hon. member and the House that members of the Canadian armed forces will treat all persons in their custody to a standard that meets or exceeds that required under international law including the Geneva conventions.
The United States has indicated its willingness to abide by international law. It is based on this commitment that our troops were involved in the transfer of individuals captured in Afghanistan.
We are continuing to work with the United States and our other allies to ensure that international law is followed and that our prisoners are treated in a humane fashion.
In closing, let me assure the hon. member and all members of the House that Canadian actions will be in accordance with international law.
Broadcasting Act January 31st, 2002
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill S-7 which would amend the Broadcasting Act. It has been set up to allow the CRTC to set out regulations outlining standards for the awarding of costs. In particular it would enable the commission to award and tax costs among the interveners who appear before it.
Sections 56 and 57 of the current Telecommunications Act already authorize the CRTC to award various costs to organizations or individuals who take part in telecommunications proceedings. This unfortunately is not the case for Canadian interveners who wish to contribute to other democratic processes, namely broadcasting proceedings. I am convinced that it is about time the CRTC and the Canadian broadcasting system enjoyed the same prerogatives to guarantee access to all interveners who wish to take part in the process.
It is essential to remind the House that the bill's underlying principles of justice and balance of legislative powers for all Canadians are fully supported by the Department of Canadian Heritage. It is not a new issue. A number of public interest groups, such as the Consumers' Association of Canada and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, have on many occasions raised the imbalance between the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act.
Harmonizing the two acts would not only allow Canadian consumers and interest groups to present relevant research and significant elements before the CRTC, but it would also give all Canadians the opportunity to be represented and heard by the commission when it makes broadcasting decisions that affect them directly.
It is important to draw the attention of the House to the impression concerned Canadians have of the current situation. They feel there is quite a striking contrast between the considerable financial resources of large media companies and the limited resources of individuals and of course public interest groups. Such a situation must not be tolerated in a democratic society.
It is completely logical to encourage Canadians to take part in CRTC decisions since the broadcasting system makes use of a public resource. Clearly neither the CRTC nor Canadians benefit from the inability of interveners to present well-documented briefs.
If adopted, Bill S-7 would allow individuals and public interest groups who are or could be directly impacted to apply for costs in order to help them participate in proceedings in a meaningful way. Unfortunately very often it is the matter of money that prevents Canadians from accessing such proceedings.
As we make the transition to an innovative economy and move from an industrial to a knowledge based economy, this is having an impact on Canadians' expectations of government and the role of government. In a democratic society it is only fitting that citizens are encouraged to reflect, to participate and to respond to decisions made by commissioners at the CRTC and the corporations who appear before it. After all, the broadcasting system makes use of a public resource and so it helps Canadians through its programs to connect with one another, to connect with their history and their country.
The reality of convergence comes up time and again in the communications industry. The convergence of technologies is a key dimension of the debate. More and more the regulatory issues and concerns with which the CRTC must grapple are falling under the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act and are affecting a wide section of Canadian society.
Involving citizens in decisions which affect them is a rational approach in an increasingly complex communications environment. As the commission wrestles with these matters, one way of forming its decisions is to help defray the costs of interveners who participate. Converging technologies are indeed blurring the lines between telecommunications and broadcasting which were once very separate and distinct. It is now time to standardize the rules for interveners and for the funding that governs those industries.
In the past, in cases where the CRTC conducted proceedings under the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act, such as the new media hearing, the CRTC awarded costs for interventions only to the extent that they touched upon telecommunications aspects.
As further technological interventions blur the lines, it will be more and more difficult to weigh the contribution of an intervention according to its impact on telecommunications versus broadcasting.
During the hearings of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, the CRTC itself spoke in favour of harmonizing these rules and indicated that it was indeed prepared to make the required changes through a public hearing.
Defining the criteria for such a system to award costs of broadcasting will not be easy for the CRTC as there are many differences between the proceedings of these two industries. Telecommunications proceedings focus essentially on issues involving rate structures while broadcasting proceedings usually deal with a wide variety of issues. The latter occur much more frequently and involve many more participants, for example, radio and TV stations, pay and specialized service, cable TV, satellite, wireless and networks. These proceedings also involve social as well as economic issues.
It is indeed very positive to hear the general support one hears on both sides of the House, and that must indicate very good legislation.
Middle East December 3rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, Canada has been firm in its support for the Middle East peace process. The only way we will see progress is for a condemnation on both sides of civilian casualties.
Both Israel and Palestine have the power to bring things to a successful conclusion by taking the necessary steps and ending the violence.
Justice November 30th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, one could only deduce from the comments across the floor that if he had the power the hon. member would in fact reduce and gut the entire Vienna convention so that we no longer are able to operate diplomatic relations with any country.
Immunity is a necessary condition to the ability of our Canadian diplomats abroad and our foreign diplomats to work. His continued inference that the people who come here to represent their countries are criminals is utterly disreputable.
Justice November 30th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked a number of times by the hon. member. It has been answered many times. It has been answered in the House since the bill came in. It has been answered in committee. It has been answered here just recently.
I would like to tell the hon. member that he knows full well we have a zero tolerance policy, that we have brought that into place in the Department of Foreign Affairs and that it is below contempt that he would continue to use the MacLean incident in a cheap political manner.
Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act November 29th, 2001
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Bill C-35 predates September 11. I know all of you want to connect every dot and that is what you alleged. I grow tired of this constant fixation to attach it to something--