Karen Redman

[Competition Act, February 25th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-438, an act to amend the Competition Act (game of chance).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce a private member's bill at first reading. This bill deals with printed material which conveys the general impression that the recipient has won a prize, but in order to collect that prize a fee must be paid.

The private member's bill would make it an offence under the Competition Act to deliberately circulate material which conveys the general impression that the recipient has won a prize; however, for them to be able to collect that prize they must pay money. Any individual or company which contravenes this legislation will be guilty of a summary conviction and can be fined up to $200,000 or sentenced to one year of imprisonment.

This is an important consumer issue. As members of parliament we have an obligation to address this matter. Therefore, I am pleased to bring this forward in legislation.

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

[Kosovo, February 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday tens of thousands of Albanians faced a crowd of Serbs across the bridge that spans the Ibar River in the divided city of Mitrovica. We know that Canadians bore the brunt of the violent demonstrations.

My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. What role did the Canadian forces play in preventing the violence from escalating even further?

[Canada Post Corporation Act, February 23rd, 2000]

moved that Bill C-229, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (letter that cannot be transmitted by post), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to my private member's Bill C-229, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act regarding a letter that cannot be transmitted by post. Bill C-229 was first introduced in the House during the first session of the 36th Parliament by my colleague from Burlington, Ontario. At that time it was known as Bill C-409.

The current bill, Bill C-229, addresses an extremely important issue, the delivery of scratch and win cards. In responding to this issue I have heard from many Canadians and many members of the House who have supported my efforts in the subject matter of the bill. I would also like to note that the bill was reviewed by members of every party in the House and was deemed significant enough to Canadians to be deemed votable.

Bill C-229 ensures that Canada Post Corporation does not deliver contests, lotteries or prizes that require individuals to pay out before they collect a prize. The bill is about Canada Post's obligation to deliver responsible and ethical mail. It is important to stress that Bill C-229 would not prohibit Canada Post from delivering invitations to participate in contests or games, but only those that cost the participants to enter before they collect a prize.

Bill C-229 also requires that Canada Post not deliver mail that displays any logo which mimics the federal government logo. These logos are designed to deceive the recipient into believing that the mail is legitimate, that it is being sent to them by the Government of Canada. My legislation would provide for a company, if found guilty of an offence, to receive an initial fine of $5,000. For subsequent offences it would receive fines up to $20,000.

Telemarketing and mail scams have become so rampant within Canada and our society that an organization such as PhoneBusters now exists to address these scams. The statistics of PhoneBusters suggest that between 1996 and 1999 Canadians over the age of 60 had lost a total of $23 million. This represents 81% of the total moneys lost by Canadians.

PhoneBusters also report that the third most common method used to cheat Canadians out of their money is the use of 1-900 numbers. The cards indicate an all winners hotline at 1-900—whatever, for prize claim instructions. Callers are baited into staying on the line and following through a number of instructions while in the meantime the cost of the call goes up and up. As a matter of fact, in the case I have referenced in my own riding the 1-900 number costs $19.99 per minute. This information is written in very little print on the flip side of the game card. Many do not realize that the 1-900 number is not a toll-free number.

In my opinion it is unacceptable that government corporations deliver these cards. Scam Block, a local education group that visits with seniors, wrote to me in support of the bill. It stated:

Seniors often remark at our presentations that opportunities to win can't be fraudulent if they are delivered by Canada Post.

Seniors truly believe that our government would never allow a crown corporation like Canada Post to put income above the needs and the best interest of its citizens.

I stress to members of the House that the majority of Canadians affected by this issue are senior citizens. For seniors, being able to shop by phone and mail is a necessity. Unethical telemarketing practices affect the confidence of seniors who rely on using mail and phone to do their business.

We have a responsibility to consumers. The government has taken some action on this matter, but it does not go far enough. Merely to advise consumers on how to respond to cards does not prevent the financial loss that many Canadians have incurred. The legislation requires the government to proactively respond to this important consumer issue.

This summer I had the occasion to talk to CBC reporters across Canada as they followed this piece of legislation. One of the announcers talked about having to hire a lawyer to protect his father, a senior citizen, who through telemarketing fraud and mail scams had lost all his income and savings on which he relied to live. It is an important issue for Canadians.

It is this type of situation that the legislation would prevent. Scratch and win game cards are deceptive. As legislators we must take the responsibility and act in the best interest of Canadians. That is why I fully support the amendment that will be put by the hon. member for Kelowna.

I call on all members of the House to support this matter as a non-partisan issue that impacts on all Canadians. The proposed amendments will protect Canadian consumers from losing their money daily to those sophisticated criminals by ensuring that Bill C-229 is proclaimed into law. I am confident that the bill will help reduce the victimization of residents across the country.

I fully support the bill. I hope all members of the House support the legislation which will protect consumers and which is good for Canadians.

[Heritage Day, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as a nation we have a distinct and colourful history. During yesterday's Heritage Day and all throughout this week Canadians have the opportunity to rediscover the people, places and events that have shaped this country.

Heritage Kitchener has been working extremely hard to prepare a wide range of activities for the residents of the Kitchener—Waterloo community.

As part of this year's theme, Our Farming Heritage, a display highlighting rural designated heritage properties has been set up at Kitchener city hall. Local residents have been invited to bring in old photos of buildings and landscapes to be copied and placed in the city's archives.

Josef Schneider House is hosting a heritage multimedia project from local schools as part of a national initiative celebrating local history. That will be followed up by a National Heritage Fair in Ottawa this July.

This Saturday a bus tour, entitled Rural Routes, will take place and participants will be treated to Kitchener—Waterloo's pioneer farmsteads and scenic roads.

I congratulate the region which decided once again to utilize the 1878 Governor's House and the 1852—

[National Flag Of Canada Day, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today is National Flag of Canada Day. This year we celebrate the 35th anniversary of the Canadian flag.

Each year on flag day we reaffirm our pride in this country's flag. Since it was first raised on February 15, 1965 the flag has been a symbol by which our country is recognized throughout the world. Ask anybody who has put it on a backpack and travelled throughout Europe.

The Hon. Maurice Bourdet once stated, “The flag is the symbol of the nation's unity, for it, beyond any doubt, represents all the citizens without distinction of race, language, belief or opinion”.

In recognition of flag day I have sent flags to each of the secondary schools in my riding of Kitchener Centre.

I had the privilege last Friday to visit Cameron Heights Collegiate in downtown Kitchener and there, with students studying international law, we raised a flag to celebrate flag day in Canada.

Raising the flag gives us all an opportunity to reflect on what it is to be Canadian.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the opportunity during this debate to discuss the legitimacy of the role of the House of Commons in setting rules that would guide the conduct of the House and of the federal government within a process that could lead to the secession of one of our federation's provinces.

On January 19 La Presse published an article by Mr. Claude Castonguay who incidentally was the minister of health and social services in the first Robert Bourassa government. He has taken part in all of the debates on the political future of Quebec either as a minister, a senator or a concerned citizen.

In his article Mr. Castonguay stated, “Quebec independence would have profound repercussions for all of Canada and its citizens, including those in Quebec who want to remain Canadian. So it should be no surprise that the federal government wants to set some rules of conduct that it intends to follow in the event of another referendum on sovereignty. That is the objective of the recent bill on clarity tabled in the House of Commons”. He went on to say, “I find it difficult to see this bill which in no way limits the prerogatives of the national assembly as an attack on Quebec”.

These are the words of a great Quebecer with vast experience in political and federal politics whose integrity and political judgment have earned him the esteem of his fellow citizens regardless of political stripe.

Mr. Castonguay chose to reflect carefully on the clarity bill before entering into the debate. More than a month after the bill was tabled, he acknowledged loudly and clearly what many believe in their hearts but do not dare to say in public.

It is perfectly legitimate for the Government of Canada, while respecting the powers of the provincial legislative assembly, to set rules that would guide its conduct within a process that could lead to the secession of a province.

Mr. Castonguay's statement is at odds with the many objections that were raised when the draft bill was introduced and which have been raised since the bill was tabled that challenge the very legitimacy of the role of the House of Commons in this affair. Those secessionist critics are trying to convince people not only in Canada but on the international scene as well that the House of Commons is usurping its powers when it takes the necessary measures to set rules that would guide its own conduct and that of the federal government in the event that a province initiates a process that could lead to secession.

Those critics claim that we, the members of parliament representing all Canadians, are subject to unilateralism of the secessionist leaders and have no choice but to stand idly by should our federation break up. Wanting to reduce the members of this House to mere spectators belies the profound ignorance of the origins of the Parliament of Canada. It flies in the face of our political traditions and practices.

I think a little history 101 is in order. In the introduction of the reference regarding the secession of Quebec, the supreme court in its wisdom provided some historical background. In the courts own words:

Confederation was an initiative of elected representatives of the people then living in the colonies scattered across part of what is now Canada. It was not initiated by imperial fiat.

The justices of our federation's highest court went on to describe the circumstances in which our federation was born:

In March 1864, a select committee of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada...began to explore prospects for constitutional reform. The committee's report, released in June 1864, recommended that a federal union encompassing Canada East and Canada West, and perhaps the other British North American colonies, be pursued—

An opening to pursue federal union soon arose. The leaders of the maritime colonies had planned to meet at Charlottetown in the fall to discuss the perennial topic of maritime union. The Province of Canada secured invitations to send a Canadian delegation.

On September 1, 1864, 23 delegates—five from New Brunswick, five from Nova Scotia, five from Prince Edward Island, and eight from the Province of Canada...met in Charlottetown—The delegates reached agreement on a plan for federal union...featuring a bicameral central legislature.

As we know, this plan would take the form of the 72 Quebec resolutions. Those resolutions were debated and in March 1865 approved by the Canadian Legislative Assembly with the support of a majority of members from both Canada East and Canada West.

Our parliament and the House of Commons was born out of the desire of elected representatives of what were then British colonies to establish a federal government. The federal parliament and the House of Commons is the tangible expression of that union, which was freely approved by elected representatives.

As Mr. Lucien Bouchard pout it so eloquently on July 1, 1988, “Canada was born 121 years ago, as the result of a process that drew on the sources of dialogue, negotiation, and openness”.

Since 1867 the House of Commons has been made up of members representing the constituent entities of the federation. Since 1867 members of this House have always taken pains to fulfil their responsibilities under section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, of which the preamble stipulates that they are free “to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada”.

Yet some people claim that we, the elected members of the House of Commons, have no say, have no right to take tangible measures when faced with a threat of secession. If there were to be a secession they try to deny our role to the point of relieving us of our responsibilities toward all Canadians.

This line of reasoning by the secessionist leaders is the result of such mental acrobatics and such twisted logic that the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, an academic and expert in international law, sometimes finds it difficult to endorse it.

On December 8 in an interview on RDI he declined to give a flat no to the following question:

Isn't it legitimate for the federal government to want to assess the clarity of the question?

When pressed by the interviewer to clearly state his position he had this to say:

The supreme court suggests that Canadian political actors, which may include the House of Commons, can assess the clarity of the question and the majority, but not before the referendum.

In closing I would like to quote from an interview in Le Devoir on January 27 by Mr. Benôit Lauzière who was the paper's editor from 1986 to 1990. In that interview Mr. Lauzière described Canada in this way:

It is above all a generous idea...and in my opinion, therein lies the principle of a modern citizenship. I almost want to say that we are condemned to ensuring that it works. Because what is the alternative? The resurgence of every sort of nationalism.

We would be running counter to the western world. There aren't many places like it in the world. As a citizen, I don't detest having several orders of government. It comes back to the idea of checks and balances—

The secessionist leaders must acknowledge that we have the right to take the measures necessary to prevent our federation, “a generous idea” wherein “lies the principle of modern citizenship,” to use the words of this former editor of Le Devoir , from disintegrating following a referendum with an ambiguous question and an ambiguous result.

[Black History Month, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to acknowledge Black History Month and to congratulate Canadians from coast to coast celebrating in communities with a variety of cultural events.

In 1995 the Government of Canada declared February to be Black History Month. This gives us the opportunity to celebrate cultural, social, economic and political contributions of blacks and to celebrate the 166th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in British colonies.

I am pleased that in my riding of Kitchener Centre and in the surrounding area a number of special events are being planned. The Black History Association of the Waterloo—Wellington region are sponsoring lectures at Holy Trinity Anglican Church and Maranatha Evangelical Church in celebration of this month.

The Congress of Black Women are sponsoring a story telling evening and the Caribbean Canadian Cultural Association will be holding a who's who in the black community event to honour young people, especially those who are contributing significantly to the Kitchener community.

I encourage all members of the House to take some time to participate in black history events that are being hosted across the country.

[Human Rights Day, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today Canada marks Human Rights Day. Last year we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights. This day is extremely significant and I would like to highlight women and human rights.

This past week we took time to remember the 14 women who lost their lives 10 years ago because of violence. It was a senseless act based on hate. Through the promotion of human rights we strive to enshrine equality between men and women.

Canada has been an international leader in this area. We are strong supporters of human rights at the United Nations. We have committed to the UN Commission for the Status of Women, the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the 1995 Beijing Platform.

At Beijing, Canada's delegation lobbied to ensure that the platform would call for an accelerated process toward equality between men and women globally.

However, there is a still a great deal we need to do. Pay equity was just the beginning. It was not the end. Gender analysis must become a commonly used tool by this government in order to achieve—

[Violence, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today is a day for Canadians to reflect on the pervasive problem of violence against women in our society. There is a probability that we each know someone who has either committed an act of violence or is its victim.

Today we can ask ourselves: Have we identified this person or persons in our lives? Have we taken the time to become aware of violence, to recognize it when we see it? Have we listened to what others say? Have we heard when they ask for help? Have we acted to end violence? Have we changed our own ideas and behaviours in ways that prevent violence and promote safety?

Each of us must take personal inventory of how we have contributed to the public campaign to end violence against women and to make the commitment to change our attitudes and actions in the coming year. We must stand up to sexist and violent behaviour.

In my riding of Kitchener Centre the local community will be participating in a memorial to commemorate the 14 Canadian women who lost their lives 10 years ago today. We must not forget this anniversary and, as a society, we must take responsibility to eliminate violence.

[Health, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, AIDS is a disease that reaches across all borders. This year 2.6 million men, women and children will die from AIDS. Some 95% of those infected with HIV live in developing countries with limited resources to fight back.

What is Canada doing to help AIDS victims and to prevent further spread of the virus in developing countries?