Mac Harb

[Canada Pension Plan, June 11th, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-475, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to amend the Canada pension plan to extend eligibility for survivor pensions to the dependant children and spouses or common law partners of deceased contributors. It deals with contributors who are disabled and would allow for those benefits, in the event the contributor is deceased, to go to the children.

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

[The Deaf and Hearing Impaired, June 7th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I rise to offer my support of the motion. I wish to commend my colleague for introducing it. I also wish to commend the Parliament Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage who worked diligently on encouraging as many of her colleagues to support this important initiative. The parliamentary secretary has asked me whether or not I would support the motion. She encouraged me to do so, and I am willing to support it.

The motion would support the right to communications of the deaf and hearing impaired and set up a fund to research and develop the technologies required to assist in this endeavour. The government is already committed to ensure that all Canadians have access to our broadcasting system.

Television has become an integral part of our lives and one of the primary sources of information for all Canadians. Can members imagine seeing an important event on television but not being able to hear what was being said or reported, or hearing the newscast or program but not seeing the visual images? This was the world for many hearing and visually impaired Canadians until the discovery of closed captioning and voice print.

What is closed captioning and how does it work?. Closed captioning translates the audio portion of a television program into subtitles, also known as captions. These captions usually appear at the bottom of the television screen and generally scroll in unison with the program being viewed. To view closed captioning the viewer requires a caption decoder chip in the television set or a separate decoder.

Let us look at the National Broadcasting Reading Service and La Magnétothèque. They are providers of services for the visually impaired, also known as voice print. Voice print is provided by the National Broadcasting Reading Service and La Magnétothèque via a newspaper reading service 24 hours a day, along with other programming to assist persons who are blind, visually impaired or print handicapped. Generally voice print is delivered over a secondary audio programming service, SAP.

How do we ensure the growth of these important services? We do so as we implement a variety of tools to ensure that our hearing and visually impaired citizens have access to our diverse stories. It only makes sense that as the dependence on television increases so should our resolve to provide the hearing and visually impaired with access based services.

An example of this resolve is included in subsection 3(1)(p) of the Broadcasting Act which states:

programming accessible by disabled persons should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose;

To this end the Government of Canada has undertaken many initiatives to ensure that this service continues to grow in both official languages. Currently closed captioning is a mandatory requirement to obtain funding from the Canadian television fund.

The CRTC, the body which regulates our broadcast airwaves, makes it a requirement to provide these services and has set out clear goals that Canadian broadcasters are expected to meet. For example, major broadcasters such as CBC, CTV and Global must caption at least 90% of all programming during the broadcast day as well as local news, including live segments.

Medium size broadcasters and smaller stations are encouraged to meet the same standard while specialty services must also work toward that 90% goal.

Challenges for captioning in French include a small market base and the fact that captioning technology was initially developed for the English language market.

Other examples of resolve include the simplification of the Canadian film or video tax credit as announced in the February 2000 budget. The Department of Canadian Heritage now requires that all certified productions be closed captioned for the hearing impaired. This is an especially important point because now even more Canadian stories that are set to film are shared with even more Canadians, thanks to services like closed captioning.

It is important to note as well that even with these positive measures in place, we face challenges that call for even more resolve. For instance, closed captioning in French is within a small market base that was originally designed to facilitate an English language market.

It is a fact that television has become an essential tool in the debate and exchange of free ideas. These ideas are the very same ones that help sustain and grow a democratic society such as ours without exclusion. All Canadians, including those who are hearing and visually impaired, deserve to be joined in debate and exchange ideas.

I support the initiative to commence with discussions on the important issue of closed captioning. I suggest to everyone that they make their concerns known to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in the course of its review of the Canadian broadcasting system.

I conclude by congratulating the minister and her very able parliamentary secretary who have brought this issue to our attention, as well as the member of parliament who proposed the motion. It is my hope the motion will be adopted unanimously by members of parliament.

[Thyroid Month, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that June is Thyroid Month in Canada.

Approximately 15 million North Americans have thyroid disease and many do not know it. An untreated, abnormally functioning thyroid can lead to cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, anxiety and depression.

The Thyroid Foundation of Canada, a non-profit registered volunteer organization with 23 chapters across Canada, promotes awareness and education about thyroid disease and raises much needed funds. Health Canada has funded the development of a thyroid assessment questionnaire to open physician-patient dialogue on thyroid symptoms and has developed a special program to ensure the accuracy of thyroid testing.

I invite hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Thyroid Month in Canada.

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in tonight's consideration of the Privy Council Office estimates, which cover the cost of commissions of inquiry, including the commission on the future of health care. That commission requested an amount of $15 million over two fiscal years, $7.4 million in fiscal year 2001-02 and $7.6 million in 2002-03. These amounts are reflected in the estimates of the Privy Council Office.

I welcome this opportunity to speak about the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada because of the importance of medicare in the daily lives of Canadians. For nearly 50 years, medicare has helped define who we are as people, reflecting the values we share as a society, and few things have become more central to our national life or have come to embody our most fundamental beliefs. In recent years, however, what was once a point of pride has become a cause of concern.

Changing demographics, new technologies and anxieties about the sustainability of medicare created new challenges and required new responses. That is why, in the year 2000, an historic agreement was reached between the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers, aimed at meeting immediate needs and addressing short term concerns. This was an important step, but we also knew that if we were to address the long term sustainability of health care we needed to look further down the road to 10 years or even 20 years from now to define the health care system of the 21st century.

That is why in April 2001 the federal government created the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, led by the able Saskatchewan premier, Roy Romanow. As we know, the commission mandate was straightforward: to address the long term sustainability of a high quality, universally accessible, publicly administered health care system. In particular, it looked at how we can foster and maintain a culture of continuous improvement in Canadian health care and how we can develop and maintain an environment of constructive collaboration between governments, and governments and stakeholders, in support of medicare.

Because of the importance of health care to Canadians and because of its complexity, the commission divided its work into two phases. The first was aimed at fact finding, doing the homework and building a solid foundation of evidence upon which to base its consultation. To avoid duplicating work that had been completed or undertaken by others, the commission's small in-house research staff focused on synthesizing the existing body of knowledge about health care in Canada and the options that exist to strengthen it. A significant portion of the commission's research effort was contracted to external policy analysts, practitioners and scholars, most of whom are associated with Canadian think tanks or universities.

It was an ambitious research agenda. Three major research projects were commissioned in the areas of human resources, the impact of globalization and federal-provincial fiscal relations. In addition, the commission produced over 40 background and research papers on a wide range of subjects and organized public policy forums and roundtables, including three international roundtables in London, Paris and Washington in order to gain insight from countries facing policy challenges similar to our own.

This fact finding work led to the commission's interim report tabled in February this year. While that report quite properly did not draw firm conclusions or foreclose on debate, it did indicate that a clear consensus existed on a number of points.

First, all Canadians should have reasonable access to quality care regardless of income or where they reside. Second, people should not risk bankruptcy if they become ill. With more and more treatments and drug therapies falling outside the coverage envisaged by the health care act, it is an increasingly important issue. Third, any reform to the system must not negatively affect the poor or the vulnerable. Fourth, there is an important role for government in health care.

These areas of agreement are not insignificant. They present a solid foundation on which to build. The second phase which has just been completed involved consulting directly with Canadians. It was perhaps the commission's most important contribution, for it removed health care from the passion of political debate and returned it to where it belonged: with the people of Canada.

Canadians responded. Close to 2,000 formal submissions or abstracts were received from individuals and organizations. More than 16,000 Canadians completed the commission's online survey. The commission fielded over 8,000 phone calls, e-mails and letters.

All told, the commission will have heard directly from over 600 groups and individuals during its public consultations. Many members of parliament including members of the opposition will play an important role and will be able to participate in their own ridings. To all the organizations which held town hall meetings, encouraged public debate and distributed the commission's workbooks I express my sincere appreciation.

With the public consultations behind it the commission is wrapping up its work with a series of public forums involving experts from across the country. The final stage will see the commission study its research results, review the findings of the preceding consultation phase and assess proposed policy directions.

I am pleased to report to the House that the final report will come in on time and on budget. The commission has done a great service for Canadians. I look forward to its recommendations as do my hon. colleagues. I can pledge to the House that the people of Canada will be given careful consideration. I am speaking a little out of line. I am sure the commission will do that.

I will close as I began, with a recognition that at its heart health care is not just about the services we receive but about the values we hold. The Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada recognized early on the importance of understanding those values, testing our commitment to certain principles, articulating the policies that flow from them, and recognizing that we must rethink our ideas about medicare. We must never abandon our ideals about medicare.

I am thankful to be able to participate in this important debate about health care and the importance of adopting the estimates so the Government of Canada can carry on doing the excellent and marvellous job it has been doing for the past nine years and which it will continue to do from here on in.

[Trade, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

Mexico, with over 100 million people, represents a huge market for Canadian businesses. Obviously we have a lot of businesses that are interested in areas such as technology, transportation, aerospace and education.

I want to ask the minister what he and the government are doing in order to ensure that Canadian entrepreneurs have access to the market in Mexico.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the bill. It is my hope that this legislation will go through the House and move on to the next stage so that it becomes law.

This legislation deals with two elements, first, the harmonization of what we already have in a place, and second, to introduce new penalties and increase some of the other penalties.

The first element of the legislation would harmonize some of the definitions and issues that we have in the bill. That is a timely matter. As we know this legislation has not been touched for quite some time. I commend the minister who has brought this legislation before the House. It has gone through a substantial amount of consultation with various parties and interest groups, the community as a whole, and people at the provincial level. This has all been done with one thing in mind, and that is to bring to parliament legislation that reflects the needs of the communities, deals with the substantive issues that the government is trying to address and to harmonize some of the definitions and issues and bring them up to date.

On the second issue it is important for the government to take the action it is taking on the issue of enforcement. It is important for us to create a high level of awareness in our communities that cruelty to animals is not acceptable. We must put measures in place to protect animals.

Along with outreach, information and education there must be a level of enforcement. Individuals must be told what needs to be done but at the same time they must be shown the consequences if that does not take place. The introduction of the measure for protection came as a result of a number of studies that have shown over and over again that those who have tendencies to abuse animals would have tendencies to abuse human beings. That correlation does exist. Simply put, to introduce and strengthen those measures is the right thing to do.

Earlier my colleague raised a number of concerns. I have also heard from some of my constituents who have also raised some concerns. For example, one of the issues that has been raised in the House deals with certain provisions in Bill C-15B against the killing or poisoning of animals without lawful excuse that, in their views, would make industry more vulnerable to prosecution.

It is important to know that offences which prohibit the killing or poisoning of animals without lawful excuse are set out in parts of the legislation, mainly subsections 182.2(1)(c) and 182.2(1)(d) respectively. The words lawful excuse are expressly mentioned in the offence provisions because they form an integral part of the definition. The activity itself, the killing or poisoning of an animal may be a lawful activity, for example, slaughter, pest control, defence of persons or other animals, protection of property, legal authorization such as hunting, fishing or trapping, and euthanasia. Lawful excuse is a flexible concept designed to provide access to an unlimited variety of excuses or justifications.

Depending on the nature of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed it is impossible and unwise to envisage every situation that could amount to a lawful excuse for a particular offence. Whether or not there was a lawful excuse for an offence is a determination that must be made on the basis of all circumstances as presented by the evidence.

Another issue that had been raised concerning a certain element of Bill C-15B was whether or not the criminal code had the effect of criminalizing activities in various regulated sectors or setting standards of behaviour. The answer to this is quite clear. The criminal law in relation to cruelty to animals does not at all prohibit legitimate socially accepted or regulated activities that do not inflict unnecessary suffering on the animal. A vast body of jurisprudence on animal law supports this particular position.

If we look back over the past 100 years, since animal cruelty laws have been in place, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the criminal law is being misused to target legitimate hunters, fishers or people working on the farm. On the contrary there is every indication that the only acts that result in a criminal offence are of sheer or senseless brutality taken against an animal, or they come as a result of criminal neglect in the feeding or care of animals. The criminal law is applied generally and sets a minimum standard of behaviour which must be adhered to by everyone.

There have been other questions raised by my colleagues dealing with the possibility of a third party alleging that someone has committed a cruel act against an animal. This deals with the whole issue of frivolous or vexatious prosecutions. This particular issue would be dealt with by the courts. In other words, one would have to go through a lot of hoops before being able to establish a legitimate complaint against a third party.

Individuals would have to put their name on the line by making the allegation. The court would have to look at the allegation and assess whether or not there was reason to believe a particular offence had taken place. Before a procedure would move to the next step a judge would have to be fully satisfied that there was ample evidence that supported the claim of the third party that someone may have committed a cruelty to animal offence. Once it moves to the next step there are ample numbers of protective measures in place to prevent those kinds of frivolous actions from taking place. The criminal code also deals specifically with false allegations. An individual who makes a false allegation against a third party is subject to prosecution.

Having listened to some of the comments of my colleagues in the opposition as well as hearing from some of the special interest groups in the communities and looking at the legislation itself I can say in all fairness that it strikes a strong and good balance between the needs of those who are legitimate hunters or trappers and the protection for our animals. It is my hope that this legislation would go through the House smoothly and become law as soon as possible.

[Fisheries, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

We all know that the minister has taken a strong leadership on the issue of fishing outside the 200 mile limit off the east coast. I want to congratulate him on that but I also want to ask him a question.

As he probably knows, the fish stocks are diminishing on a regular basis and there is a need for proper management. We know the issue is complex but what is he doing at the international level to pressure those who are fishing outside the 200 mile limit to stop fishing in order to protect the fish stocks in Canada?

[National Missing Children's Day, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, 23 years ago a six year old boy named Etan Patz disappeared while walking to catch his bus to school. Since 1986, May 25, the anniversary of Etan's disappearance, has been recognized as National Missing Children's Day. It is a day for renewed hope and a day to remember.

The Missing Children Society of Canada asks Canadians from coast to coast to help light the way home for these missing children by turing on their porch lights the evening of May 25. For the families of missing children, the porch lights, which will shine brightly tomorrow night, are a reminder of the hope we all share for the safe return of their children.

I call on all hon. members and on all Canadians to join me in lighting the way home for missing children Saturday night.

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, all I want to say is that this institution works. Since 1867 until now, out of 167 ministers who have resigned, five were as a result of conflict of interest, two were Liberals, one in 1965 and one in 1878; two were Conservatives, one in 1988 and one in 1986; and one was a Liberal Conservative in 1891. This is a good institution, my colleagues. We have to respect it. We have to move beyond the past.

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to dignify a senseless question with a senseless answer.

I missed one thing which I want to make clear for the House. This is a good institution. Since Confederation, going back to 1867--