Marlene Jennings

[The Environment, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on March 27, Canada became the first country to ratify the amendments to the Montreal protocol dealing with ozone depleting substances.

The purpose of the amendments approved in Montreal this past September is to strengthen the treaty's provisions. These amendments include the prohibition of imports and exports of bromide between countries that have not signed the protocol, and the establishment of a world system to monitor the movement of ozone depleting substances.

The amendments to the Montreal protocol will only come into effect after being ratified by 20 states. This initiative demonstrates the Canadian government's determination to follow up on its decisions regarding the environment.

[Reform Party Of Canada, March 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is out of touch with the real concerns of the people of British Columbia. This party came to Ottawa promising to be constructive and to do politics differently. Instead, it has engaged in negative, divisive antics that have nothing to do with helping average Canadians. Canadians in British Columbia and elsewhere are concerned with maintaining and improving our health care system while Reformers worry about whether or not they can have a flag on their desk.

While this government sets the course for lower taxes, reduced debt and improved social programs, Reformers spend their time in Ottawa trying to start fist fights in the Chamber and slinging mud at the Prime Minister during their time in question period.

British Columbians want more than pandering to cheap politics from their representatives. They want someone who will bring jobs to their communities and someone who reflects their daily concerns. Subsequently I urge British Columbians to remember this when they cast their ballot next week—

[Health Care, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend during our biennial convention the Liberal grassroots demanded that the Canadian government do its utmost to protect Canada's health care system. As well, the resolutions on this issue prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are listening and that we are taking effective action by proposing appropriate measures for responding to the needs of Canadians.

The Prime Minister of Canada made a firm commitment to protecting and improving the Canadian health care system.

Our government has already announced a reduction in cuts to transfer payments to the provinces. The provinces also have a responsibility in this regard. They must make sure that the resources allocated by the federal government are in fact used to improve health care in Canada.

[Racial Discrimination, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind all hon. members that March 21 marks the 10th anniversary of the celebration of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was crafted by a Canadian, John Peters Humphrey.

We live in a Canada that enjoys a worldwide reputation as a model society that values social justice and democracy above all else. In reality, racism and social discrimination continue to act as barriers to the realization of our full potential as a socially responsible, progressive and prosperous nation.

Let us resolve anew to build upon our determination to craft a society in which every citizen feels a proud sense of belonging, a society in which social justice is a reality and not just a dream.

[Access To Information Act, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-216, which seeks to include all crown corporations under the Access to Information Act.

Those of my hon. colleagues who support this bill referred to the principles of accountability and transparency to bring crown corporations under the ambit of access rules.

I do not dispute the merits of accountability and openness. This government supports this position. However, if one looks at the fact one sees that Bill C-216 does not take into account the legitimate interests of crown corporations that are currently exempt under the Access to Information Act.

Bill C-216 starts from the principle that there is no difference in the objectives of crown corporations. It does not take into account the difference in purpose of their public interest mandates, nor does it account for the different environment within which they operate.

I am concerned that Bill C-216 may be viewed by some members of Parliament as a relatively harmless extension of the Access to Information Act to crown corporations. The reality would be quite the opposite.

Allow me to illustrate my comments by focusing on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. If adopted, Bill C-216 would have a particularly harsh effect on CBC. It would impair this corporation in a number of vital areas, including the protection of its journalistic integrity, the protection of its independence under the Broadcasting Act and the protection of its competitive position. Information is the stock in trade of the CBC. Bill C-216 proposes to define the CBC as a government institution. This would mean that information in possession of the CBC would become accessible to all.

The definition of record in section 3 of the Access to Information Act is broad enough to include, for example, broadcast material, edited, filmed or taped materials, notes, confidential memos, names of sources which are recorded, and research done for programming purposes. There is no exemption under the Access to Information Act for journalist function. This would jeopardize the CBC's ability to carry out its mandate because all past, present and future records, whether gathered for administrative, creative, journalistic or programming purposes, would be subject to access application.

Do members think that individuals would be prepared to corroborate a story if they knew that their identity could be revealed? Imagine, for example, the consequences if subjects of a documentary on organized crime could apply under the Access to Information Act for the names of the interviewees who may have wished to be projected. Revelation could result in reprisal.

If Bill C-216 were to become law, a simple request could force release of information which press institutions legitimately strive to protect. The CBC would be forced to operate under different ground rules than those applying to its competitors. No other broadcaster in Canada is subject to the Access to Information Act. In fact, the federal government does not have the jurisdiction to place other broadcasting institutions under such legislation. The net result would nullify the CBC's journalistic force.

The Broadcasting Act repeatedly asserts the respect for freedom of expression in journalistic, creative and programming activities of broadcasting undertaking. This statute reiterates this independence, in particular to the CBC. Why is this the case? The CBC is expected to operate as a public broadcaster, not a state broadcaster. The CBC is an autonomous broadcasting entity with a mandate to gather and disseminate accurate information in an impartial manner free from interference from government or the public.

Various governments and committees throughout the years have taken pains to emphasize the autonomy of the CBC. The Broadcasting Act of 1991 reaffirms the CBC's arm's length relationship. Throughout the years the necessity to maintain the journalistic integrity of the CBC through the arm's length principle has been recognized and endorsed by committees and study groups which have reviewed the Access to Information Act.

In its 1987 report “Open and Shut” the standing committee on justice and legal affairs recommended that special provisions be made to exclude from the coverage of the Access to Information Act all program materials of the CBC. In 1994 the office of the information commissioner arrived at the same conclusion in its report “The Access to Information Act: A Critical Review”. The only exception granted was the program material of the CBC which it was agreed would not be subject to the legislation.

Bill C-216 would undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the CBC which is mandated by Parliament to provide a public broadcasting system at arm's length from the government. The CBC also has certain characteristics in common with other crown corporations such as Canada Post, Export Development Corporation and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited which have commercial operations that are not now exempted from the operation of the Access to Information Act. The CBC provides a service pursuant to the Broadcasting Act and it produces a product, the programs.

In both the provision of the service and the production of its product, the CBC competes with the private sector. The net results of this proposed legislation would be to compromise the competitive position of the CBC. The CBC's proprietary technologies and standards together with the confidential commercial financial information related to its business activities and that of its contractors, suppliers or business partners would be at risk.

The CBC currently generates $300 million in the marketplace. Bill C-216 would jeopardize the ability of the CBC to maximize its shareholders' investments in Canadian programming. I do not believe that the public interest would be served by placing sensitive proprietary information in the public domain where it would be open to the scrutiny of competitors that do not have the same disclosure rules.

In terms of the public's having an open window on the corporation, the CBC takes pride in applying very high standards of accountability, openness and transparency. They are the centre pieces of the CBC's corporate governance process. The CBC does not only apply those standards through its formal reporting requirements to government bodies and Parliament but it has also taken steps over the years to increase its accountability through its ombudsman offices and through public outreach programs. These initiatives led this year to the presentation of the corporation's first on the air annual review which included a forum that allowed for questions and comments from the public both on the air and via the Internet.

The CBC must not be subject to Bill C-216 because of issues of journalistic integrity and competitive equity. Canadians have the right to a public broadcaster whose journalism and entertainment are benchmarks for the industry in Canada and around the world. They deserve no less.

The legislation before us would cause more harm than good to Canadians. It is not in the public interest and that is why I cannot support it.

[Seniors, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in the Chamber as representative of the riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine which has one of the highest percentages of seniors in all of Quebec.

I was outraged at the comments earlier this week of the Reform member for Edmonton North concerning 73 year old Mr. Archibald Johnstone. Not only was I outraged but so were my constituents, including Mrs. Caroline Wright Byford who will celebrate her 102nd birthday on Sunday, March 15.

As anyone with working grey cells knows, age is a state of mind. At this time when the United Nations has declared 1999 the International Year of Seniors I would hope that the Reform Party, and in particular the member for Edmonton North, would celebrate the fact that we as a nation have a population of seniors who lead active and productive lives and contribute in a real and meaningful way to our country.

I would also hope that the member would stand and apologize to seniors everywhere.

[Investments In Canada, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, after the federal budget's prediction that the deficit would be eliminated, Statistics Canada has released some interesting figures on investment forecasts.

Businesses and public administrations predict record investments of $120 billion in facilities and equipment in 1998, which is 5.5% more than last year. Quebec's performance should exceed the Canadian average. This is a good argument in favour of keeping Quebec within Canada.

In the private sector, the situation will also be favourable. For example, shipping companies project investments of $6 billion in 1998, $1 billion more than in 1997. In Quebec, investments will exceed the Canadian average for the first time in three years, and should increase by 8.4% this year, compared to 6.2% for the country as a whole.

Such reports destroy the sovereignist myth that the Canadian economy—

[Canadian Census, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week Statistics Canada published the 1996 census data pertaining to the ethnic and racial composition of our great country. According to these data 11% of Canadians are visible minorities.

As a Canadian woman who is black, I salute our federal government for its courage and foresight in ensuring we have hard data about the composition of our society. This information will assist the government in developing good public policy and programs. This ensures equality of all citizens and equitable access for all in every sphere of activity.

As any astute business person will tell you, do your market study if you want your company's product or services to do well in the marketplace. Study your consumers.

Unlike the Reform Party and the Bloquistes, our government does not believe that ignorance is power. Liberals firmly believe that knowledge is power.

[Property Rights, February 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, as I was stating, the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt asks that the charter of rights and freedoms be amended to recognize the right of every person to enjoy and own property and not be deprived of that right without full, just and timely compensation and due process of law.

Perhaps the hon. member has not read the charter of rights and freedoms. Perhaps the hon. member is not cognizant of our Canadian Bill of Rights, but property rights are already protected in the Canadian Bill of Rights.

With the coming of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 which duplicated many of the provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights, it is important to understand how the bill of rights enacted in 1960 fits into the larger scheme of human rights protections in Canada.

This bill of rights remains in force but is substantially different from the charter as it does not apply to provincial legislation or actions. It operates as a federal statute which is applicable to federal laws and actions. Whereas the charter expressly overrides any act, whether it be federal or provincial that is inconsistent with the charter, the Canadian Bill of Rights does not have express provisions that permit it to override other federal statutes.

Therefore the difference between the bill and the charter is that the bill does not have a limitation clause as provided by section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What does the lack of a limitation clause mean for the protection of property rights?

I would ask that the hon. members on the other side of the House who are supporting this motion listen carefully to what I am about to say. They might actually learn something.

[Property Rights, February 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the motion by my colleague on the other side of this House calls states that the charter of rights and freedoms be amended to recognize the right of every person to own and enjoy property—