The House met at 2 p.m.
We have removed barriers in many of our buildings to make them
more accessible and functional for people with disabilities. We
have heightened public awareness and acceptance that access is a
right and everyone's responsibility.
This government provided $168 million to the vocational
rehabilitation of disabled persons program. As well, the
Government of Canada is contributing an additional $100 million
for Canadians with disabilities. This includes the new $30
million opportunities fund that will help people with
disabilities to find jobs.
The litmus test of Canadians' commitment to equality and equity
is meaningful social and economic participation.
It was a stupid decision, equivalent to flying in Atlantic
salmon to serve to guests in B.C., or the premier of P.E.I.
because the Prime Minister wanted to introduce his foreign guests
to a provincial premier.
The government did not question the looks of the Seaforth
Highlanders before sending them to war. Nor did it ask Seaforth
veteran Smokey Smith to change his uniform before pinning a
Victoria Cross on his chest.
The Vancouver based Seaforth Highlanders have a long and proud
history as a Canadian regiment. To suggest in any way that they
are not representative of their country is an unspeakable insult.
The Prime Minister's decision to bypass the Seaforth Highlanders
is shameful and disgusting. I ask that he apologize to the
Seaforth Highlanders today.
Regardless of whether one accepts the low income cutoff or
poverty line set by Stats Canada, there are some facts we should
all note. The average poor family of three in Ontario lives 35%
below the poverty line, on an annual income of $17,000. This is
in dramatic contrast to the average income of $60,000 for all
families with children in Ontario.
Aside from the obvious human costs, unless we quickly develop a
concerted effort to combat this problem, there will be economic
costs to pay through the education system, the health care system
and indeed perhaps the correctional system.
With their tenacity, courage and skills, these men and women
who deserve our full admiration have made names for themselves in
the world of culture and sport, as well as in professional, social
and community involvement.
In the coming days, let us take time to examine our share of
responsibility in improving their quality of life. We can, without
a doubt, use as a guide for our reflections the theme of the Quebec
week: Access is independence; everyone gains from it.
Guaranteeing access is a collective obligation. Independence
is a precious gift, but each of us knows what a fragile gift it is.
May the week of the disabled raise our awareness of that reality.
Canadians approached this consultation with an understanding
that economic growth and fiscal success are not ends in
themselves, but rather a means to improve the quality of life for
all Canadians.
Canadians want balance, not just a balanced budget, but balance
in government policy, in its goals and its results. Canadians
want balance between the security offered by debt reduction and
the benefits of investing in people, technology and research and
development.
Canadians firmly believe that health, education and pensions are
not just line items on a balance sheet but rather an expression
of our core values. Canadians want to leave future generations a
legacy of expanding opportunities and security rather than one of
high taxes and escalating debt.
Canadians have demanded accountability from the government as
well as responsibility from themselves.
Not only are we witnesses to the historic signing of the
convention and the prohibition of the use, stockpiling,
production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and their
destruction, we have made history. We have ensured that the new
international norm against anti-personnel mines is fundamentally
encoded in a legally binding treaty.
We have participated in a remarkable global effort. I take this
opportunity to commend not only our Minister of Foreign Affairs
but also all those NGOs that have participated in this remarkable
occasion.
Do you see a pattern here? It is obvious. Beginning with Bill
C-68 this Liberal government is committed to the elimination of
firearm ownership in Canada. It is wholeheartedly dedicated to
harassing law-abiding gun owners and confiscating their property.
Registration then confiscation. That is the motto of these
Liberals. Shame on the Liberal government for trampling on the
property rights of Canadians.
Every year, December 6 marks the National Day of Remembrance
and Action on Violence Against Women, to ensure that no one ever
forgets this tragic moment in our history.
According to Statistics Canada, half of the women in Canada
have been the victim of at least one act of physical or sexual
violence after the age of 16.
Behind each statistic is someone's mother, sister or daughter,
someone just like any of the 14 young women whose memory we will be
honouring on December 6.
Violence continues. We will, however, use this day to remind
ourselves that the efforts of all Canadian men and women are
required if the attitudes that perpetuate violence and prevent
women from attaining full equality in our society are to be
changed.
Let us not beat about the bush. A debate at this point is
irresponsible and puts the extremists in the spotlight. Both the
Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois categorically reject those
advocating violence to achieve their political goals, like Raymond
Villeneuve and his extremist movement.
However, the federalist camp has its fair share of extremists
too. Jim MacKenzie, an acknowledged partitionist, is raising a
fuss and threatening municipal officials with guerrilla tactics if
they do not support his proposals for hacking up a sovereign
Quebec.
The debate on Quebec's political future was much healthier
when federalist extremists were not officially sanctioned by the
Liberal government. What are the Liberals waiting for to
dissociate themselves publicly from the partitionist movement?
Mr. Bélanger is one of the great Quebeckers devoted to the
service of their country with a vision of the future that arose
from a knowledge and a great understanding of the history of Quebec
and Canada.
Universally respected in the worlds of business and politics,
Mr. Bélanger was always keen to contribute to the workings of
government. He also wanted to ensure that our society continued to
evolve as it had, because it was clear to him that Quebec was meant
to be within Canada.
We are all aware of Mr. Bélanger's contribution from the start
of the Quiet Revolution in Quebec to the present. In both the
public and private sectors he acted with vision, wisdom and reason.
Canada has lost a formidable ally and builder. Our
condolences—
I am a proud Acadian from New Brunswick. I am therefore
really concerned when I see Acadians leaving their communities
because there are no jobs and heading for anglophone urban centres
where the risks of assimilation are greater.
It is the responsibility of this government to invest in our
francophone communities outside Quebec. Creating jobs also creates
vibrant communities where young people can work and contribute to
the continued development of the French language and culture where
they were born and grew up.
The federal government's budget cuts to the network of
cultural associations and institutions, and to Radio-Canada are
contributing to the disappearance of French in Canada.
It is time this government stopped cutting and began investing in
francophone communities outside Quebec.
Most of us do not think very often of the blessing of health we
enjoy, but it is important to be especially considerate of those
who are not so blessed.
I think today of my sister who has lived with cerebral palsy all
her life. I think of my friend Rudy, who, though younger than I,
is totally disabled with Parkinson's disease and confined to his
wheelchair. I think of Mark who faces the daily challenges of
living with multiple sclerosis.
When we want to get up to go to a different place in the room,
we just get up and go without even thinking of it. These people
and thousands of others do not have this priceless privilege.
They are locked into the limitations of their bodies.
Our thoughts are with them today, our friends who live so
courageously from day to day.
Yesterday Maple Leaf Foods announced that it will develop a new
world class hog processing plant in the city of Brandon. The
capital investment will be $112 million and initial employment
will be 1,150 new jobs.
The investment in the plant is a key component of Maple Leaf's
ability to compete globally. The CEO of Maple Leaf Foods said
the plant will be a model operation worldwide, making it the best
processing plant in the world.
I thank the many people who made this possible: Maple Leaf
Foods, the province of Manitoba, the city council of the city of
Brandon, and especially the economic development officer, Mr. Don
Allan.
In a fit of hot-headedness, the member for Abitibi challenged
an individual in the public gallery to a fist fight. Not content
with verbally abusing a member of the public, the member went so
far as to remove his jacket in an attempt to goad him into a fight.
We can just picture the heritage minister making a pitch for
free flag poles, the justice minister looking for a few more
million to hand out on airbus suits, and so forth. They have
spending plans galore.
Which ministers, if any, are arguing not for spending increases
but for debt reduction and for tax relief?
We are striving to create the right balance in the best interest
of Canadians between eliminating the deficit, debt reduction and
helping Canadians lead better lives, something the Reform Party
does not seem to be interested in.
The industry department is looking at how to hand grants to
friends of the government. Environment wants to spend money on a
way to harness the wind power of the Minister of Natural
Resources.
However Canadians have other priorities.
We have a $600 billion federal debt and we have the highest
personal income taxes in the G-7.
Will the Department of Finance make debt retirement and tax
relief its number one—
The government is supposedly good at setting targets. The Prime
Minister claims to have a target for CO2 emissions. In fact he
had three of them in the last three weeks. If the government has
a target for cutting CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year
2007, will it commit to reducing tax levels to 1990 levels by the
year 2007?
We have already given billions of dollars of tax relief through
the last budget. I am sure we are very much in line with the
interest of Canadians for a balanced approach to tax relief, debt
reduction and living better lives, whether one is a poor Canadian
or a Canadian wanting better health. I look forward to the next
budget which will confirm how we are operating in the best
interest of all Canadians.
Canadians are demanding debt reduction. They are demanding that
their taxes be lowered.
Why are the ministers involved in a WWF spending match and
ignoring the real demands of Canadians for debt reduction and tax
relief?
Why is the Reform Party thinking of nothing else but debt
reduction, rather than our balanced approach, which will help
Canadians live better lives and continue the success we have had,
contrary to the suggestions of Reform for a better fiscal balance
for our federal government and all Canadians?
Yesterday the auditor general told us how the industry
department spent a whopping $143,000 on its latest job creating
scheme. That was $143,000 for a $30,000 a year job.
How many billions does the government plan on wasting before
Canadians get real debt reduction and real tax relief? How long
do they have to wait?
I do not know why the hon. member does not want to support this
and continues to talk about something that is not accurate. He
claims that we have been raising tax rates when we have not.
We are very conscious of the need to have a balanced approach.
We are interested in tax reductions. We are interested in
balancing our debt situation, but we want to help Canadians have
better lives, unlike the Reform Party—
In light of this finding, the Fédération des communautés
francophones et acadienne is calling for a firm and proactive commitment
by the federal and provincial governments to ensure that French-speaking
people can survive and flourish in this country.
What is the heritage minister's reaction to the appeal made by the
federation?
But the increase in numbers is too small and this is why, in recent
years, we have been working on a new policy. As members know, we have a
five-year plan for the development of minority languages. The plan, due
to end next year, will be extended, along with several new elements, not
only to provide French education, but also to maintain French language
institutions, which should please francophone communities all across
Canada.
What will the Minister of Heritage do to shake the apathy of the
English speaking provinces, which has consequences such as the enormous
problems experienced by the Montfort hospital, in Ontario?
It was $28 million in 1995 and it will be $21 million in 1999, a
decrease of 20%. Funds for the ACFO have been reduced by 10% and those
for francophones in Saskatchewan have been cut in half. Examples like
this can be found across Canada.
Does the heritage minister believe that it is by cutting essential
funds for the francophone and Acadian communities that she will help
them solve their assimilation problem?
Indeed, the five-year program we have implemented to support
minority languages, that is the French language outside Quebec and the
English language in Quebec, provides for $900 million over five years.
If the member wishes to talk about numbers, there is no doubt that
these reveal a willingness to go forward. That is why my cabinet
colleagues have assured me that there will be an increase in these
numbers in the next five-year plan to be announced at the beginning of
next year.
She said “As a French Canadian, I am a second class citizen. As a
Quebecker, I am a first class citizen.” That is the difference. If
French Canadians want support, they should not go see the member for
Rimouski who calls French Canadians second class citizens. This is
outrageous.
There are 400,000 young people in Canada today with no job
prospects. That is 400,000 youths facing squeegee futures.
In the U.K. leaders have put their political futures on the line
with Target 2000, a program with specific targets and timetables
that promises 250,000 new jobs, real jobs for young people.
Do the minister responsible for youth and her colleagues have
the courage to do the same?
We have announced a youth employment strategy which is a very
good program; youth internship Canada and youth services Canada.
We are helping about 110,000 young Canadians a year with our
present strategy.
When we look at the extraordinary results we are having with
this strategy we realize that we have developed the right tools
to help youth with the transition from school to work.
The prime minister meets in Ottawa next week with the provincial
and territorial leaders. Will the minister ensure that the prime
minister goes to that meeting and makes it into something more
than a photo op? Will he push the prime minister to show genuine
leadership by taking to the meeting a comprehensive youth
employment strategy with precise targets and timetables and come
away from the meeting with our own target 2000 plan for Canada's
youth?
Youth employment has risen; 31,400 more youth employed in the
last three months. That is as a result of our strategy.
I will not need to push the prime minister to do his job at the
next conference. I know the prime minister is very preoccupied
and concerned with the situation of youth unemployment and he
wants to talk partnership with the provinces. This is an issue
so important that we want to address it as partners with the
provinces and the private sector because this is a national
problem.
In the aftermath of this postal strike I know this will not
interest the Reform Party but I will ask the question. The
seasonal fund-raising—
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister today whether or not the
government would consent to extending the period for credible
charitable donations to the end of January—
I have not received an answer as yet but I or the Minister of
Finance will get back to him as soon as possible. I thank him for
giving us the opportunity to look into this issue.
While we are on the issue of expenditures, could the government
explain to us the logic that allows it to dispute and have some
discussion about spending new taxpayer money? If there is new
taxpayer money to be spent, why is it not offering Canadians a
tax reduction instead?
When is the government going to stand up for Canadians and
British Columbians and fight for us? The minister is down in the
United States giving our quotas to the Americans. When is he
going to stand up and do something?
Who is this government standing up for, Canadians or Americans?
Which is it? When is the government going to get on its feet and
do something for Canada?
If the member would not be trying to make the political rhetoric
he is he could be helpful to us in terms of encouraging the
Americans to come on side and reach an agreement with us.
I hope therefore to soon have the opportunity of having discussions
with Mr. Rochon and the other ministers.
Will the government undertake to investigate the free spending
of this appointee?
There has been nothing drawn to my attention that indicates any
irregularity whatsoever. Because an hon. member has inquired, I
too will inquire, but there is nothing on the record that is
known to me that would justify that kind of slur.
Under Treasury Board guidelines, it would have worked out for
his hotel and per diem to be about $10,000. He spent $26,000. We
are wondering where the cash is.
Will Canadian taxpayers have to wait six months before the
minister takes action against Vollman, or has this government
learned its lesson from the Weatherill fiasco?
However, I think it is going far beyond the bounds of reason and
fair play for the hon. member to leave that kind of slur on the
record without providing the official even an opportunity to
respond.
After several years of cuts to the research and development sector,
the government tried to save face in its latest budget by announcing the
establishment of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, with an $800
million budget over a five-year period.
Since the foundation has now been in place for ten months, how can
the minister explain that the foundation's board of directors just met
for the first time?
I should also point out to the hon. member that the board members
have already met. They appointed directors and so did the government.
They are now ready to begin their work, less than 10 months after the
announcement was made in the budget.
Will the minister agree to have the foundation report its results
to Parliament on a regular basis, so that taxpayers know whether or not
they are getting their money's worth?
However, I think I can assure the member that the foundation will
be very proud to make known to all Canadians the successes that
will undoubtedly flow from investments in research and
development at Canadian universities and research hospitals.
They are understandably outraged that a group of busy little
bureaucrats is sitting there poised to kill the discount and
charter air businesses in this country, the only way that travel
is affordable to average folks.
Yesterday the transport minister brushed my question aside, and
so I will ask him again will he make his bureaucrats back
off and tell them—
There has been no change in the enforcement. There is a process
by the Canadian Transportation Agency to consult with
stakeholders on future regulations that, even if they did come to
me, would have to be approved by cabinet. Let us not alarm
Canadians.
When he has a view on these particular matters, he should let
the Canadian Transportation Agency know his feelings and they
will be taken into account, as will the feelings of all the
stakeholders. Not one Canadian is going to be affected this
Christmas. Not one Canadian is going to be affected until
regulations are approved by the Government of Canada and that is
not forthcoming at this time.
The minister pledged to conduct an in-depth review of the urgent
demand made by the dairy industry regarding imports of oil, butter and
sugar mixtures.
What can the minister tell dairy producers, who no longer want to
be hurt by these imports, and who are urging him to take quick action?
Global attention is now focused on the conference under way in
Kyoto, Japan where countries search for the right formula to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect the global
environment.
How can Canada be putting forward a position that does not have
the support of all provinces? What is the minister doing to gain
the co-operation of all Canadians in meeting our goals?
My question to the government is, what would the government have
done were there to be a disaster in central Canada during that
time?
This government has told Canadians that the long delay in
replacing search and rescue helicopters would not adversely
affect search and rescue capabilities. The reality is obviously
somewhat different and the parliamentary secretary and the
Minister of National Defence seem to be out of the loop, all
because of a cynical election promise in 1993.
I ask the government again, if there had been a disaster in
central Canada last week how would the victims—
The minister has been a minister for five years so he must be
pretty embarrassed by this. Would he tell us on a scale of one
to fourteen just how embarrassed he is by this?
We all agree that greater emphasis needs to be put on
encouraging performance of research and development, in
particular in the private sector. That is why we created the
Canada Foundation for Innovation. That is why we renewed the
networks of centres of excellence and made that a permanent
program. That is why we promised in the red book an increased
amount of funding for IRAP, and that is why as we move forward
from here, we will continue to protect intellectual property, a
key component in ensuring that research is done in the private
sector.
Maybe the minister can tell us when he decided that Canada
should not play in the big leagues.
We are leading the world in space exploration. We are leading
the world in regional aircraft. We are leading the world in
environmental technology, in particular in relation to water. We
are leading the world again and again. As we go forward from
here with the commitment that the government has, together with
the private sector and our universities, we will lead the world.
Again, will the minister instruct NavCan to simply accept its
own minimum standards for air traffic controllers? Will he tell
NavCan to hire air traffic controllers to bring staffing up to
its own minimum staffing standards?
In April 1996 we established a demonstration project of 120
vehicles to showcase the capabilities of alternative fuels.
In general, we provide better fleet management now, focusing on
greater efficiency, in order to reduce fuel consumption and
emissions.
There is not a lot of public confidence in the justice system,
so will the government advise Canadians how the next supreme
court appointment will be put through more appropriate public
examination?
What I have also said is that in my developing a list of
qualified applicants for a position with the Supreme Court of
Canada, I am willing to consult with any and all Canadians who
are interested. Therefore, I would encourage the hon. member,
other members of his party and other Canadians interested in this
appointment to contact me directly.
Following on its condemnation of the rampant terrorism in
Algeria, a delegation of European parliamentarians has announced
its intention to travel there in order to assess the human rights
situation and make recommendations.
How does the minister see Canada supporting this undertaking
by the European parliamentarians?
I thank the hon. member for his question.
The Liberal head tax presents a huge barrier to many of those
refugees and families who genuinely need access to Canada. The
so-called success of the loans program does not take into account
all of those who do not even apply, and the reduction in
applications since the implementation of the tax underscores
this.
Will the government join with every other country in the world
and remove this offensive tax?
I must say in this connection that, according to our studies,
we have penalized no one wishing to settle in this country, because
we have set up a system of loans accessible to everyone who cannot
make the payment themselves, a system that is working very well.
Diamonds are said to be a girl's best friend. However, I am not
sure that diamonds will end up being this minister's best friend.
Diamond mining in the Northwest Territories of Canada is an
extremely valuable new industry. Can the minister guarantee the
House that the jobs in the sorting and the grading sector of this
new industry will remain in the Northwest Territories of Canada
and not be lost to some offshore cartel?
We have a working committee which has representatives from the
federal government and the territorial government focusing on
this new and burgeoning aspect of our economy.
I look forward to the continuing advice from that committee and
to ensuring that Canada does indeed benefit from this great new
asset.
The federal government has stated the importance of small
business focusing on the needs of rural Canada. How are those
issues being addressed in western Canada?
One of the better programs is the community futures development
program. In the last fiscal year it provided over 2,000 loans,
created more than 6,000 jobs and provided information on loans,
counselling and business plans to over 250,000 western Canadians.
This is a loans program which is operated by local people, many
of whom are volunteers. And Mr. Speaker, it works.
I did so and saw two people. One gestured rudely at me and
then made another gesture beckoning me to a fight.
During the day I twice intervened in the debate on Bill C-24.
My interventions were specifically directed at the people of
Abitibi and postal workers.
I will not challenge a union's right to try to protect and
promote its members' interests. Last night I told the NDP member
for Acadie—Bathurst that I would be intervening today.
My union experience told me I was dealing with two CUPW
negotiators, invited by a political party. It is regrettable that
because of these gestures—
My dear colleague, that is not a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Burin—St. George's has the floor.
As a member of the fisheries and oceans committee, naturally I
take issue with the minister's prejudgment of the work of the
committee. More importantly I suggest that they constitute an
attempt to intimidate the members of the committee, particularly
the Liberal members of the committee who form a majority.
The fisheries and oceans committee has just finished a tour of
Atlantic Canada and parts of Quebec, having had 15 meetings out
and about the country and having seen about 4,000 people. I take
exception to what the minister said.
Although these statements were made outside of this House, the
authorities are clear that any action outside the House which
attempts to molest or intimidate members can constitute a
contempt of the House even though the events complained about
occurred outside this House. There is a longstanding assertion of
the privileges of the House against conduct which tends to
obstruct members in the execution of their parliamentary duties.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer you to the 22nd edition of
Erskine May, page 127, which clearly states that analogous to
molestation of members on account of their behaviour in
Parliament are speeches and writings reflecting upon their
conduct as members. As a matter of fact, as far back as February
26, 1702 the House of Commons resolved that to print or publish
libels reflecting upon any member of the House for or relating to
his service therein was a high violation of the rights and
privileges of the House and the member.
So, Mr. Speaker, I submit to Your Honour that the minister of
fisheries—
I have ruled that this is not a question of privilege. It could
be that the member would have a grievance of some sort. I would
encourage all hon. members to be very judicious in their choice
of words inside and outside the House.
I would like to correct a number of facts that were just mentioned
by the member for Abitibi. Yesterday evening, when we were voting on
Bill C-24 at report stage, we witnessed a rather disgraceful scene on
the part of a member of this House.
A verbal confrontation took place between a member of Parliament
and a spectator in the public gallery. The hon. member even took his
jacket off, as he admitted earlier, and challenged the spectator to
fight with him. This is totally unacceptable and it is an insult to our
whole institution.
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, I think what the hon. member
is referring to is an incident that took place in the House which
is regrettable. The hon. members from what I can understand had a
joust of words. We have that every day in the House of Commons.
The hon. member for Abitibi on a question of privilege, which I
judged not to be a question of privilege, apologized to the House
for any actions that he has taken. If this is a continuation of
what I judged not to be a question of privilege, then I think it
should end here, unless the hon. member has something more that
he wants to add. At the end of it all, I think what we want here
is decorum in the House.
I will permit the hon. member to terminate with a very few words
because I would like to move on to the other point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, I quoted Standing Order 16, which
deals with the decorum that must prevail.
It seems to me that, in such a deplorable situation, because we did
not get the same interpretation of the comments made by the member for
Abitibi, it would be normal for the hon. member to apologize, or for the
Chair to call him to order.
In this particular case, the member apologized to postal workers,
but offered no apologies to the House and to our institution. I would
like to see him do just that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1515
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I will read the blues again.
[English]
The hon. member for Abitibi has said that he apologized not only
to members in the gallery but also to the House.
An hon. member: No, he didn't.
The Speaker: I beg you, my colleagues, that I am not in a
debate with you. I am here to hopefully see to it that there is
normal discourse in the House. We cannot have that when we are
shouting in the House.
The hon. member has apologized to whoever was in the gallery.
The hon. member has apologized in my view to whoever in the House
has taken offence. I take that as an apology.
I will revisit the blues and, if necessary, I will come back to
the House, but at this time this point of order is over.
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my point of order arises out of comments made by the Minister of
Natural Resources in question period. She seemed to be unaware
of spending details with reference to Mr. Kenneth Vollman,
vice-chair of the National Energy Board.
It is important to get this information into the public arena as
it is taxpayers' dollars that are being spent on these
expenditures. I would like to table the document that details
the information for the minister.
The Speaker: The hon. member can deposit the document
with the unanimous consent of the House. He wants to table a
document. Does he have unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
DECORUM IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise on the
same point of order raised by my colleague from Témiscamingue. I wonder
if it might not have been appropriate under the circumstances to
immediately call to order the hon. member for Abitibi for pulling off
his jacket. That in itself constitutes a breach of the proper dress code
for this House—
The Speaker: My colleague, sometimes things happen pretty fast in
this place, in the House of Commons. I do not know what I would have
done, but one of my colleagues was in the Chair and did for the best in
the circumstances.
I would ask all hon. members to conduct themselves honorably. After
all, we are the parliamentarians of Canada.
As the hon. member said, this kind of attitude is not acceptable in the
House of Commons, and all members are requested to refrain from doing
such things. We should not even exchange certain words, which are a tad
too strong.
I would ask that the hon. members please choose their words more
carefully. And the same goes for their actions. I would like to leave it
at that. I think the point has been discussed enough, my colleague.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
The Speaker: Does it pertain to another matter? Is it a new point
of order? I am putting the question directly to the hon. member for
Richelieu. In a word: is this a new point of order?
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, the matter can be settled easily.
In all good faith I would just like to tell the Chair that I believe the
hon. member for Abitibi, by nodding, in fact apologized. This confirms
that he apologized to the House. The hon. member could now nod to
confirm and that would settle the matter.
Is the member apologizing? Yes?
1520
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
longstanding traditions of this House call for, perhaps demand, but
at the very least call for respect for the Chair in refraining from
questioning a decision by the Speaker once one has been made. I
trust members will adhere to this parliamentary tradition, which is
worthy of all those who are part of it.
The Speaker: Is there another point of order?
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
concerning the hon. government whip's intervention.
The Speaker: Come now, this is turning into a debate. I will
allow the hon. whip to say a few words but I want that to be the
end of it. We have work to do here.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the hon. government whip
has referred to the long British parliamentary tradition in this
House, and rightly so. That tradition calls for respect of the
Speaker's decisions, and I agree.
That tradition does, however, also call for decorum in this
House. We are here to exchange ideas, but when a member invites
someone else to come to blows—
The Speaker: Point made and accepted. It is not acceptable to
see these little squabbles between anybody. Now, that is that for
the moment.
MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Yvan Bernier
(Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the Chair for recognizing me. It is not about
the points just raised, but about the point raised by the member
for Burin—St. George's.
I realize that the Chair has made its decision, but for the
information of the House and of the public, the question raised by
the Conservative member for Burin-St. George's concerned
allegations by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans regarding the
work of the standing committee, and the fact that this could hamper
us in our parliamentary work.
I would like the Chair to remind the House and the listening
public that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries
and Oceans is a body duly created by the House, by you, Mr.
Speaker. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is
accordingly completely free to do the work it wishes.
At no time may allegations by ministers made in or outside the
House influence this work. Am I correct?
The Speaker: The short answer is yes.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 10
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage.
[Translation]
Pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(2), our
committee studied the topic of the Canadian television and cable
production fund.
On the strength of these and other observations, the committee
recommends as follows:
[English]
That the Government of Canada maintain its level of funding for
the Canada Television and Cable Production Fund at least at the
1997 level.
* * *
1525
PETITIONS
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition
from a number of Canadians, including some from my own riding of
Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children
is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to society.
The petitioners would also like to point out that they concur
with the report of the National Forum on Health in terms of its
recommendation that we should be investing more in our children,
particularly since the Income Tax Act does not fairly take into
account the real costs of raising children.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon parliament to
pursue tax initiatives to assist families that choose to provide
direct parental care to preschool children.
PENSIONS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased and honoured
to present a petition on behalf of constituents of Winnipeg North
Centre and other Manitobans who are very concerned about Canada's
retirement system.
They are worried about changes in the works that are being
discussed. They petition the government to rescind Bill C-2 and
to establish a national review of the retirement income system in
Canada to ensure the adequacy of Canada's retirement system today
and tomorrow.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the
honour to present three petitions today.
The first petition ask parliament to urge the government to
upgrade the national highway system in conjunction with the
provinces.
PUBLIC NUDITY
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition asks parliament to
clarify the Criminal Code to ensure that public displays of
nudity cannot be considered an infringement of an individual's
freedom of expression.
The third one asks parliament to enact legislation to prevent
women from appearing topless in public.
PENSIONS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition
on behalf of the citizens of Manitoba, asking that Bill C-2 be
rescinded.
It imposes massive CPP premium hikes while reducing benefits,
changes the CPP financial arrangement to provide a payoff for Bay
Street brokers and bankers, ultimately sends Canadian investment
dollars out the country, and reduces employment.
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a
petition signed by nearly 500 constituents from Appin, Melbourne,
Mount Brydges, Glencoe, Parkhill and Strathroy after a series of
break-ins and auto thefts in their communities.
The petitioners urge the government to lower the age limit for
young offenders, to strengthen the penalties and to publish the
names of convicted young offenders in their local newspapers.
PENSIONS
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
conjunction with my colleagues from Manitoba who have spoken to
the matter this afternoon, I am pleased to present a petition
pursuant to Standing Order 36 on the Canada pension plan.
It is signed by a number of people from the prairie region who
are interested in supporting a publicly administered universal
pension plan which ensures that all Canadians, not just the
wealthy, can look forward to a secure retirement.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 23 will be answered today
.[Text]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac-Mégantic):
With regard to the recent reopening of the Cassiar asbestos mine
in British Columbia, can the government (a) state what its
involvement was; (b) indicate how much the government
contributed; (c) indicate which government programs were used;
(d) indicate the amounts contributed under each program; (e)
specify the conditions of any loan or loans, including the
interest rate and duration; and (f) indicate which departments
were involved in this reopening?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of National Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): The
Cassiar asbestos mine in British Columbia has not been reopened.
The project mentioned is in fact a pilot project to reprocess
waste from the old mine.
The Cassiar pilot project went into service on October 19, 1997
and is producing only for test purposes. To date, there has been
no industrial production.
The pilot project is financed entirely by the private sector.
Natural Resources Canada has not been involved in any way in the
opening of the Cassiar pilot plant.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Just before we grant leave for all questions to stand, could the
parliamentary secretary explain why it is taking so long to get
an answer to Question No. 14? The question was tabled on
September 23, which means it is well beyond the 45 days the rules
allow for the government to reply.
1530
The question seeks to find out whether the government has
honoured the commitment made by the former minister of health a
year ago to spend $10 million on education and other programs to
reduce youth smoking. I am concerned at the delay in making this
information public and wonder if my colleague, the parliamentary
secretary to the government House leader, could undertake to
ensure that the response is quickly forthcoming.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have some information on the progress of questions which are as
yet unanswered. I would be glad to see if in fact I can give the
member opposite some information immediately.
Failing that, I will follow up on this question and see that it
is answered as quickly as possible.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that
the notices of motion for the production of papers be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA MARINE ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-9, an act for
making the system of Canadian ports competitive, efficient and
commercially oriented, providing for the establishing of port
authorities and the divesting of certain harbours and ports, for
the commercialization of the St. Lawrence seaway and ferry
services and other matters related to maritime trade and
transport and amending the Pilotage Act and amending and
repealing other acts as a consequence, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There are 20 motions in amendment
standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-9.
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:
[Translation]
Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 12.
[English]
Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 4, 10, 11 and 20.
Group No. 3: Motions Nos. 5 to 9 and 13 to 17.
[Translation]
Group No. 4: Motions Nos. 18 and 19.
[English]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern during the time of voting.
I should advise hon. members and draw to their attention the
fact that the French text of Motion No. 13, as printed in the
Notice Paper, is incorrect. A corrected version is available at
the table.
The chief government whip on a point of order.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there have been consultations among all parties and I believe you
will find unanimous consent for an order of the House that would
deem all amendments which have been found in order at the report
stage of Bill C-9 to have been read by the Chair and to have been
duly moved and seconded, and to further provide that when there
is no further debate the amendments will be deemed to have been
put and a recorded division requested.
In any case, no later than 5.30 p.m. today all questions
necessary to complete the report stage will be deemed to have
been put, divisions requested and deferred until the conclusion
of the consideration of Government Orders tomorrow.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
have had discussions with my colleagues in all parties opposite
and I believe you will find there is unanimous consent to waive
notice and introduce a technical amendment as follows:
That Bill C-9 be amended by replacing line 34 on page 16 with
the following: “tions made under paragraph 27(1)(e)”.
I will be making copies of this technical amendment available at
the table immediately. I thank in advance members opposite for
their co-operation.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Transport have the unanimous consent of the
House to propose the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1535
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the proposal, without
agreement on the amendment at the moment. Can the hon. member move
it and include it in the motion proposed by the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
and can the amendment be the subject of debate this afternoon with
the other amendments proposed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. For
clarification purposes, could you tell this House the number of
this motion and the group it will be presented in?
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair will do so as soon as possible.
We have to look at the amendment now that it has been presented,
and I will tell the House soon which group it belongs to and it
will be available at the Table for all to see.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, I do not
want to be overly procedural, but am I to understand that it will
certainly not be included in discussing Group No. 1, which will be
discussed immediately?
The Deputy Speaker: The answer is no. We can now begin with
Group No. 1.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, as a point of
clarification, I was of the impression that in spite of this
agreement we would first speak briefly to the legislation and
then speak to the amendments. You are asking us to speak to the
amendments first.
The Deputy Speaker: This is the report stage of the bill.
It is for the purpose of discussing amendments to the
legislation. If the hon. member wishes to debate the bill he can
do so on third reading, but at report stage we do proceed with
speeches of 10 minutes duration on groups of amendments. We are
now on Group No. 1. I understand the amendment proposed by the
parliamentary secretary will not be included in Group No. 1 so we
are safe to start on that if the House is ready. We will be
debating Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 12.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ)
moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 8, be amended by
replacing line 9 on page 6 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after
line 7 on page 11 the following:
“(3.1) For the purposes of subsection (3) the Minister may fix
the limits of a port that is to be managed by a port authority.”
That Bill C-9, in Clause 14, be amended by
replacing lines 7 to 9 on page 13 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 48, be amended by
replacing line 32 on page 29 with the following:
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate at report
stage on this bill which has been so long in the making.
Transport Canada has implemented a comprehensive strategy of
change over the last few years, commercializing many activities,
streamlining regulations, reducing or eliminating subsidies and
cutting departmental overhead and expenditures.
I believe the government has demonstrated leadership in
attaining national goals and in nurturing national programs and
institutions within the framework of the Canada marine act. The
first group of amendments before us will go a long way to
achieving a number of objectives.
First, marine infrastructure and services will respond to user
needs. Second, excess marine infrastructure and services will be
rationalized or transferred to more efficient local management in
an orderly way. Third, the operation of marine infrastructure
and services will be managed on commercial principles wherever
possible by commercial entities with a minimum of overhead costs
and red tape and the maximum user say.
Fourth, the federal framework of legislation, regulation and
administration will be simplified and streamlined while
maintaining our high standards of safety. Fifth, marine
infrastructure and services will continue to be provided for
remote communities in a manner that will preserve a national
presence in such communities. Sixth, overall levels of
subsidization, direct and indirect, will be significantly reduced
or eliminated.
These amendments will go a long way to ensuring that local
autonomy will be increased in order to reduce costs and allow
ports to better serve their customers.
The federal role in ports as a result of this bill will be more
clearly focused on the ports of greatest importance to Canada's
domestic and international trade and to those that provide marine
service to meet the basic needs of the various remote
communities.
We are providing representation on the board of directors to
allow increased involvement in port management by business and
local interests. The bill has provided for a majority of the new
port boards to be nominated after consultation with users. We
believe this acknowledges that it is the users who must pay for
marine facilities and services.
[Translation]
At transport committee hearings, we were told that boards of
directors could be strengthened by making provision for members
with a more diverse combination of qualifications.
1540
We agreed with this point and amended the bill accordingly so
that the three levels of government have this latitude when
appointing board members.
Changes made in committee will allow provinces and
municipalities to appoint to boards of directors members with the
necessary qualifications to represent a broad range of local
interests, not just business interests.
This increased flexibility, along with the advice that will be
supplied by port users, will make it possible to ensure that boards
of directors include members with a diverse combination of
knowledge and qualifications.
[English]
This new port authority will have powers relating to shipping,
navigation, transportation of passengers and goods, the handling
and storage of goods as well as other activities that are deemed
in the letters patent to be necessary to support the port
operations.
In the letters patent there will be a full description of the
lands that will make up the port limits. I think that is
extremely important in the whole context of land management.
The bill does require port authorities to develop a land use
plan within 12 months of receiving its letters patent, and at
least 60 days before the plan is to come into effect the port
must advertise in the local media and obtain public input before
it finalizes its plan.
Unlike the past practice at many ports, Bill C-9 makes it very
clear that Canada port authorities must develop their land use
plans in consultation with the local community. That is
extremely important right across the country. I want to take an
aside here and underscore to my friends in Toronto this is indeed
the aim of this bill. It is now in the bill if it passes. I
think that would go a long way to ensuring local interests in
Toronto that local planning concerns will be taken into account
by the new port authority.
We have also heard a concern from members of the Standing
Committee on Transport that a direct provision was needed to
ensure that port plans are co-ordinated with other land use
regimes.
[Translation]
I am pleased to note that my hon. colleague, the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, moved an acceptable amendment in
this regard, an amendment that members on this side of the House
will be happy to support.
Accordingly, when a port's board of directors develops its
land use plan, it is supposed to harmonize its decisions, in so far
as possible, with users and with the restrictions applying to
property adjacent to port boundaries.
[English]
The vital interests of the public at large, the users of the
port, the local businesses and communities and the various
interest governments are addressed at two levels in the bill. The
procedure for the nomination and appointment of port authority
directors offers the conventional assurance that the decisions of
a port authority start with people who have professional
qualifications and who enjoy the basic confidence of the many
constituencies.
The second level of institutional control is of prime
importance. We believe that feedback will come from the strict
new disclosure requirements for a port authority. The director's
actions will be reviewable in a practical way and they will be
held accountable through various mechanisms such as annual
reports, periodic reviews and annual public meetings.
[Translation]
This is the kind of reform our port authorities want, and we
are very pleased to be going ahead in this direction. I strongly
urge members to support this bill.
[English]
The Canada marine act will help to prepare Canada for the global
competitiveness of the 21st century, to ensure a strong continued
federal presence in our ports and will serve as a valuable tool
in the continued strengthening of our economy and the creation of
jobs and growth.
I thank the hon. members who have taken part in the debate thus
far, especially the members of the standing committee who have
worked in a collegial way to deal with the concerns of this bill.
It is the second time round for the House within this calendar
year. As people know, the earlier Bill C-44 did not pass the
Senate before the election was called. We brought back in the
same bill that was passed in the House last year. This was an
important feature that my colleagues, especially in the
opposition, insisted on.
We have made some modifications. We have made some real
progress in certain areas. I mentioned Toronto a few minutes
ago. We have also been able to resolve some of the matters
pertaining to the Hamilton Harbour Commission and Hamilton, of
course, is included in the schedule as a CPA. I think this shows
how all of us working together can overcome various difficulties.
1545
In that particular case, we had to wait until certain matters
resolved themselves between the counsel in Hamilton and the
Harbour Commission. They look like they are on their way to
resolution. It seems only appropriate to include Hamilton in the
bill.
I exhort my hon. colleagues to allow this bill to go forward. It
is a good day for Canada, the Canadian marine industry and,
hopefully, in the other place, we will address their concerns
which they did not have an opportunity to address earlier this
year.
The Deputy Speaker: Before debate resumes, I am reluctant
to interrupt at this moment but I should advise the House that
the motion proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Transport and admitted on unanimous consent a few
moments ago will be in Group No. 2 and will be voted on
separately. Resuming debate.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will speak only very briefly on Bill C-9 as it was
reported from committee.
This is a flawed bill. It had a lot of promise. The foundation
and the framework are excellent, reflecting a lot of diligent
effort in the last Parliament.
Unfortunately, the builders lacked finishing skills. The final
construction has a leaky roof and rather ill-fitting doors. There
are no real excuses for the deficiencies in this bill.
Every member of the standing committee was fully aware of the
shortcomings which had been identified by the stakeholders. The
standing committee, rather than addressing the problems in the
legislation, simply rolled over and played dead.
Dozens of innocuous government housekeeping and drafting
amendments were passed but let us for a moment consider what
could have been.
The most common complaint against the bill is its provision for
a federal levy on the gross revenues of each port authority at a
rate to be arbitrarily fixed by the minister.
Can members imagine entering into a royalty agreement with a
property owner and telling him to set his own price, based on
what he felt he could afford to pay? Imagine, moreover, that the
same owner would also be leasing property to your competitors and
would be free to set different rates for them, again at his
discretion. That is precisely the situation in which the various
port authorities will find themselves under this legislation.
Changes requested by shipping companies, stevedoring firms,
unions and producers were never seriously considered. In the
end, at the crack of the parliamentary secretary's whip, the
advice of departmental bureaucrats prevailed over the wishes of
the people who have to live with the legislation.
Not only did the government members fail to respond to
stakeholders, but they lined up solidly to vote down every single
amendment presented by opposition members on behalf of the
stakeholders.
A motion to levy a charge based on clearly defined net revenues
at an equal percentage rate for all port authorities was rejected
by all Liberals present.
Second, an amendment requested not only by unions but by
shipping associations to guarantee a union representative on each
board of directors was rejected by the Liberals and, rather
curiously I thought, by the sole NDP member of the committee.
The presence of a union member at the executive level could have
had far-reaching effects on the maintenance of labour peace on
the waterfront.
Nowadays, labour relations do not just involve wage disputes,
especially at the waterfront. A lot of disputes revolve around
policy decisions and an atmosphere of mutually beneficial
co-operation would go a long way to maintaining future labour
peace.
Third and finally, one of the most galling Liberal responses was
the rejection of amendments that would have weakened pilotage
monopolies, especially on the St. Lawrence. Our proposals would
have made it easier for the captains of Canadian vessels
routinely plying the same waters to be certified to pilot their
own vessels.
Under the terms of the motion, applicants for pilotage
certificates would have had only to prove their competence and
knowledge of the waters in order to be certified.
St. Lawrence pilotage is widely acknowledged to be one of the
worst examples of pork-barrel politics and union featherbedding
in the world. A few hundred people with incomes from $80,000 to
$180,000 for nine months of work are holding the entire inland
shipping industry hostage.
The estimated cost of excess pilotage to grain shippers alone is
about $4 million annually.
1550
In refusing to accept the proposed amendments, the Liberals
demonstrated that they care more about a small legislated
monopoly in central Canada than they care about the interest of
50,000 prairie farmers.
I will be introducing proposed amendments to this bill. At that
time I would like to speak not about what we did not get in
committee, but things we hope to get here, things that could be
done to make this a better bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would first off like to thank the Minister of Transport
for having indicated his support for an amendment submitted by the
Bloc Quebecois and I would also like to thank the government for
having kept pilotage mandatory in Canada.
In this vein, I will not repeat the remarks made by my Reform
colleague. I invite him to come in the next referendum campaign
and brag about Canada's beauty as I do the rounds on the Île
d'Orléans, and then we will see about his credibility.
Clause 4 sets out as one of the objectives of Bill C-9 to
provide a high level of autonomy for local port management.
This method of operation will permit more manoeuvring room in the
use of property managed by these new administrations. For most
ports, the manoeuvring room provided in the legislation is
justifiable.
However, there are certain special situations in which
integration of port functions into the community is more complex.
The legislation as written could prevent certain necessary
adjustments.
In the port of Quebec City, for example, there might be some
concern over the use made of the manoeuvring room in a port located
at the heart of a metropolitan region, whose main city, Quebec
City, has been designated a world heritage site. In this case, a
conflict in usage has already arisen in certain areas currently
managed by the port of Quebec City.
Is it unthinkable for a special interest group, which the
federal Minister of Transport will continue to appoint, and which
are often friends of the government, to have more power than
elected municipal officials, who, however, are accountable to the
public for maintaining the area.
We contend, therefore, that the bill must be amended so that
special situations, like that of the Quebec City region, are given
special solutions. The increased flexibility we are seeking in our
amendments is necessary for the following reasons.
First, we must discuss the limits of the areas managed by
local port authorities. This is the thrust of one of our
amendments.
Second, we should provide for the possibility of submitting
authorized usage to municipal zoning when letters patent are drawn
up. This is our Motion No. 12, and the government, through its
minister, has indicated that it will support our amendment.
Third, there should be greater flexibility in the make up of
the board of directors. We will come back to that.
Let us talk first off about the geographic limits of port
administrations. I said it was important the geographic limits of
a port administration be approved by the community the port
operates in. In this regard, the legislation must provide that the
municipal zoning bylaws are to be respected by the port
authorities. This is the intent of our Motion No. 12, which the
government will support.
1555
Next, I would like to discuss our Motion No. 2. It states,
and I quote:
“(3.1) For the purposes of subsection (3) the Minister may fix
the limits of a port that is to be managed by a port
authority.”
The rationale behind this motion focuses on the possibility of
excluding from the limits of a port a part of the area which is
used for other than marine trade and transport. Let me explain.
There is one part of the port of Quebec which is called the
baie de Beauport.
There is a boating association called l'Association nautique
de la baie de Beauport, which is recreational and touristic in
nature. The bay is a regional recreation and tourism facility used
by people from all over the Greater Quebec region. This zone
ought, therefore, not to be included in the limits of the port,
since its use is not solely for shipping. It is used for
recreation and tourism.
The government still has until 5.30 p.m. tomorrow to think
about it before the vote, but we respectfully submit that the
government will need to give some thought to approving not only our
Motion No. 12 but also our Motion No. 2.
Continuing now along the same lines, I would like to look at
the composition of the port authority.
There is a problem in the current wording of this bill because it
is set out that a single municipality will represent the others on
the local port authority. What is to be done, then, when several
municipalities are affected by port operations? We know this often
leads to more complex problems for community integration.
We submit that community representation ought to be stronger
in order to offset the purely commercial aspects of port
activities. A conflict of interest might, moreover, arise between
the various municipalities where certain aspects of port activities
are concerned. In that case, given that a number of municipal
interests may be affected, we submit in our Motion No. 1 that each
municipality adjacent to the port should be able to have its point
of view heard, so that each of the municipal administrations
involved has a say.
The purpose of Motion No. 1 is therefore to make provision for
a representative from each of the municipalities concerned and not
just from one municipality speaking on behalf of the others.
In conclusion, I would like to take a few minutes to explain
Motion No. 3. First I will read clause 14(1)(d):
The Governor in Council appoints the remaining individuals
nominated by the Minister in consultation with users selected
by the Minister or the classes of users mentioned in the
letters patent.
We humbly submit that the bill should be amended to reflect
our Motion No. 3 so that it is the users themselves who choose the
people who will represent them on the local port authority's board
of directors, and so that it is not left to the minister, as it is
now, to make partisan appointments. In the case of airports, users
were asked to say whom they would like to see on their local
airport authority's board of directors. Why was the same scenario
not used for the privatization of ports?
To a certain extent, this is what we are criticizing, what we
often see in Canada. On the one hand, the government is
privatizing.
On the other hand, the government is pulling out, sometimes leaving
facilities in poor shape, but not providing an adequate budget to
make the required technical improvements. The government is
privatizing but still retaining authority for appointing directors.
1600
Unfortunately I am running short of time, but I could name
many friends of the government in office who are appointed all the
time. This has been just as true under the present Liberal
government as it was in the time of the Conservatives. That is why
we said in the last two election campaigns that Conservatives and
Liberals were one and the same.
Once again, I ask the parliamentary secretary, who is a
responsible member and who handled this issue well on the transport
committee, to examine our amendments. As can be seen, our shopping
list is not terribly long. We wanted to focus on the key points.
In closing, I would ask the House to give positive
consideration to this first group of amendments moved by the
members of the Bloc Quebecois, which I proudly represent.
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is certainly a pleasure to speak on this bill today.
I have but one little problem with it and that is that I was not
here in the last Parliament. My constituents decided to give me
a little vacation and while I was home for three and a half
years, the transport committee of the House of Commons researched
this particular bill for approximately a year and a half.
In our case, it was really thrown at us and we did not have a
lot of chance to review it. We were denied the opportunity to
hear witnesses other than the minister and his officials.
Therefore, I feel that the committee and Parliament were let down
quite a bit. However, we are going to address these motions in
Group No. 1 today.
As much as we understand the thought and the purpose behind this
motion, we are going to vote against Motion No. 1. In some ways
we feel that it makes sense, but on the other hand it would allow
an unlimited number of directors to be appointed to the CPA
boards. We think that would be a mistake. It already has a
large number of members and many of the ports have asked for
smaller boards, not bigger boards. With this amendment to the
bill, it would allow for a much larger board.
We are also going to vote against Motion No. 2 because we feel
that it will prevent port authorities from expanding, using their
own resources. It will deny them the ability to grow if a port
authority is successful and is able to grow. There have been
some very exciting examples of this lately. However, this motion
would deny them the right to continue to grow. It reduces
flexibility and creates an impedance against growth for
successful port authorities.
It basically says: “The minister may fix the limits of a port
that is to be managed by the port authority”. That really would
restrict imaginative, successful, viable port authorities.
It was interesting to hear that the airport authority in
Vancouver recently get a contract to build and manage an airport
in another country on another continent.
Motion No. 3, from the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, I am pleased to say we are going
to vote yes on this one. We feel that this is a much better idea
than the original one. It creates flexibility and removes
politics from the board. The way it is established now there is
opportunity for patronization and politics to be involved. This
removes some of that and we support it. It is much more
efficient and certainly is in line with the streamlining
objective of the whole bill, to make it efficient and put control
in the hands of the users and the people in the ports. This
amendment goes a long way toward that.
Motion No. 12. I am going to vote against this motion. Again
it changes the situation quite a bit concerning the property and
the limits “matters and zoning by-laws that apply to
neighbouring lands”.
1605
We feel this is far too vague in that local and neighbouring
municipalities could change bylaws and therefore affect what goes
on in the port authorities. The port authority may establish a
certain fashion of operation based on the bylaws that are in
place now in the neighbouring municipality or jurisdiction and
then all of a sudden, if that jurisdiction were to change its
bylaws, it could cause the port authority to have to make
substantial and profound changes in the way it operates.
We feel that this amendment is too vague. It gives too much
control to the neighbouring jurisdictions. We do not support
this motion.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there
is no question with regard to Bill C-9 that new members of the
transport committee were not given the opportunity to interview
new witnesses. We did, however, have access to an extensive
amount of considerations that were done in the previous
Parliament.
We also had time to have discussions with the stakeholders,
including people within the marine industry and union members.
Therefore, I can quite confidently say that contrary to the hon.
member's belief that the unions were not given the opportunity to
be represented on the board and shocked that that position would
not be supported by myself, it is interesting to note that the
unions did not ask for representation on those boards. I also
accepted the explanation of the member across that they were not
restricted. If their local municipalities or the authorities in
question wanted to have someone on the board, they certainly had
the opportunity to do that.
I do not make any bones about my background. I come from a very
strong labour background and I do not make any bones about that.
I am comfortable with my position within the labour unions. They
know I am there acting on their best behalf and that I am not
going to show up tomorrow suggesting back to work legislation.
In putting that point straight, I would like to comment on the
motions. I will be recommending support of Motion No. 1. All
the municipalities that have a stake in the ports should have the
opportunity for representation. We will have far greater
viability of the ports and a lot better working relationship
within those communities if they have that opportunity. I will
therefore certainly be supporting and recommending the support of
Motion No. 1.
I will be recommending support to all of the motions in this
group. It is important that the limits of the ports be clearly
set out so that a year down the road we are not questioning what
should be happening to this port or that port or whether one is
having more opportunity than the other. Therefore, I would also
recommend that one.
There is no question that Motion No. 3 will lead, I hope, to
less patronage. It seems to be a common problem with
appointments through the governing body. If we could have
representation, if the appointments were suggested by the users,
then there would be less chance of that. I would strongly urge
the government to move on that motion as well.
Motion No. 12 in regard to the zoning bylaws, the clause already
calls for taking into account the relevant social, economic and
environmental matters. I was quite surprised that the member
from the Conservative caucus would suggest that the concerns of
the municipalities in the area should not be an overall guiding
factor and their wishes with regard to zoning should not be
considered. To suggest that just because a port is there it
should have the municipalities to ransom for years to come and
not allow municipalities to readjust their zoning is just not
acceptable to me.
I will be recommending support for all these motions.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you that the bill
we are debating is an improved version of the former Bill C-44,
improved in several points I believe. This is a bill which
requires our uninterrupted attention.
No one can be opposed to the fact that it was important to
decentralize port administration in order to make it more
efficient, closer to the communities.
1610
At the same time, we must be sure that decisions on this bill
and each clause in this bill respect this. There have been some
improvements to date, not sufficient in my opinion for a vote in
favour of it. There are some interesting things in it
nevertheless.
A balance must be struck in the amendments. In Bill C-44
there was already the acceptance of port development according to
regional socio-economic characteristics. I think that was a move
in the right direction.
I would like to draw attention of the House to the question of
the port limits determined by the minister taking recreational and
tourist considerations into account.
To give an example, adjacent to the port of Cacouna there is a
Canada Wildlife Service bird conservation reserve. When the ports
are handed over, the group that takes over the port must ensure
that the status of the adjacent lands is clearly established so as
not to buy something and then have problems with the neighbours
afterward. The amendment and the bill must therefore be clear.
That is the reason behind the proposed amendment.
It is also important for zoning bylaws. With the handover of
local port facilities, it will be increasing important for zoning
regulations to be respected by those who inherit those facilities.
Municipal authorities, the grassroots, will have more say in the
matter.
Care must therefore be taken that nothing is omitted from the bill
and that the legislation is clear.
I will also take this opportunity to draw the attention of the
parliamentary secretary and the minister to the fact that these
principles must be respected in the daily business of privatizing
ports. I have an example that unfortunately is giving us pause
right now.
In the port of Rivière-du-Loup, which is a port for
ferries crossing between Rivière-du-Loup and Saint-Siméon, steps
were taken to privatize the port, but unfortunately, at the same
time, a letter was received from a regional director telling us
that, effective the summer of 1998, dredging will be discontinued
in the port of Rivière-du-Loup, meaning that in the short term the
ferry service can no longer be maintained.
I think that the government, which I believe is acting in good
faith in Bill C-9 and which really wants to see ports handed over,
should in a case like that put a hold on the operations of its
regional director and ensure that privatization can proceed under
favourable conditions, which would encourage those wishing to
acquire facilities to do so.
It should not be forgotten that the investments in the port of
Rivière-du-Loup are not a gift to the region. An economic impact
study revealed that this crossing generated $25 million. Over $3
million in taxes are paid to the two levels of government.
So when $300,000 or $400,000 is spent dredging the port of
Rivière-du-Loup, this is only a partial return on the money that
goes to the federal government through the increased economic
impact generated by crossing users.
I think it would be a good idea for the department to be sure that
its actions are in keeping with the principles of the legislation
in this regard.
I would like to point out that situations vary considerably
from one site to another. In my riding alone, there are three
different ferries. There is one covering a kilometre and a half
between Saint-Juste-du-Lac and Notre-Dame-du-Lac. Another runs
between Rivière-du-Loup and Saint-Siméon. There is a third between
Trois-Pistoles and Les Escoumins. Each case is different, and the
federal government must consider local realities when it meets with
communities in the process of divesting.
Management of the ferry in Rivière-du-Loup is by contract, but
the ferry belongs to the Société des traversiers du Québec. In
Trois-Pistoles, the ferry is privately owned. The ferry at
Saint-Juste-du-Lac operates within the lake, as the name
indicates.
So the sorts of management differ considerably, and the sites do
not all have the same financial and economic capacity.
I hope the directors and the people implementing the bill will
be openminded enough to permit the divesting of ports and for them
to become the tools of economic development for all these areas of
activity.
1615
In conclusion, I think the Bloc has done its part in analyzing
this bill in a highly professional manner. It has presented some
very constructive amendments in order to make this the best
legislation possible.
If the government had been still more precise in indicating
how much money it can put into the handover, perhaps we might at
the end of the day have been able to vote in favour of the bill.
The Bloc Quebecois amendments on the table, however, in this group
and the others, are pertinent.
They will improve the bill and I trust that the government will, as
my predecessor said in his speech, take the time to look at them
thoroughly and do as they did for the one they have already
accepted, which is to reconsider their position so that when the
amendments are voted on they can be integrated into the bill. That
will result in a more worthwhile piece of legislation.
We are now in the final stages of examining this bill, which
is today at the report stage. We will probably get to the third
reading on Friday. That is when the question will have to be
asked. This bill will govern the federal government's divesting
operations for the next 10, 15 or 20 years. If Quebec becomes
sovereign, the transfers will take place in accordance with the
contents of this bill.
What is needed, therefore, is for there to be the most solid
legislation possible in place, legislation which will make it
possible to fulfil the initial objectives and will also add
efficiency to one sector, maritime transport, which Quebec for a
long time could not get under its jurisdiction. Now, in its
exchanges with Quebec, the federal government must ensure that the
wishes of Quebec are respected, so that if, for example, a network
of ports is created, the economic objectives of Quebec can be
respected in the process.
We have before us, nevertheless, a bill aimed at ensuring
decentralization. Let us look at how it can be done under the best
possible conditions.
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have before us Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act which
is long overdue as we turn the pages into a new century. We are
not quarrelling with that. I want to commend the member for
Cypress Hills—Grasslands for the tremendous amount of effort he
has put into this bill.
I want to make a few comments about the modernization of the
ports. Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific realize this
is a modernization of the way in which we will operate in the new
century.
I have some quarrels with one area however. I particularly do
not like the number of appointments that are going to be made
available. It seems that this is a possible flaw in the bill in
that it could be offset by the number in the harbour authority in
having other people come on to the authority.
I would like to mention to the hon. member for Churchill that
when we put forth the idea of the union people being included on
the port authority, the argument was that they were never
themselves asked to become a part of the port authority. If we
look at Motion No. 1, we will also see that the hon. member was
in favour of supporting that motion, so the same thing goes for
the municipal authorities. They were not named either but they
can be asked to make their presence on the board.
If we look at Motion No. 1, this clause seems like it
unjustifiably inflates the boards of some port authorities and
therefore could possibly have an imbalance on the people who
serve on a given board. For that reason I think this is a bad
motion. We will be opposing this motion because it would render
them unbalanced in favour of municipal governments. This bill is
not designed to favour municipal governments.
It is designed to favour the operation of the harbour boards in
co-operation with the municipal governments where the harbour is
located. As a result of that I cannot support Motion No. 1.
1620
Regarding Motion No. 2, it seems that this is redundant since
the granting of letters patent will deal with the existing port
authorities. Those things will vary even within the same
province. It may vary between Port Alberni and so on. It seems
to me that this somehow limits the growth. I do not think Bill
C-9 is designed to limit the growth of the port authorities, or
curtail the economic advantages they may have. Rather, the bill I
believe is designed, and it certainly has been a long time in the
making, to strengthen the economic viability of each port.
Motion No. 3 in actually talking of users, the term “users” as
such is not adequately defined anywhere in the bill. I just
thought users were people in the business world availing
themselves of the use of the port. Whether that needs further
definition I do not know but I do not think it is necessary.
Regarding Motion No. 12, I really feel that the motion put forth
by my hon. colleague would unduly restrain, shackle or hamper the
activities of port authorities. Again I want to make sure that
the port authorities would have the opportunity to take advantage
of the talented people who sit on the boards, the inputs from the
various people, and that the port authority grows.
For the first four amendments under Group No. 1, while I do not
doubt that they were put forward with very good intentions, I do
not think we can support them. I think they are hampering the
general welfare and somehow dampening the purpose of Bill C-9.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I wanted
to actually speak on Motion No. 1 regarding the make-up of the
port authority boards. There is a port back home I want to
mention. I hope the parliamentary secretary will have some
patience here because I will come back to the motion.
This has to do with Bayside port, which is a small port on the
St. Croix River, an international body of tidal waters. It is one
of the few profitable ports in Canada. In fact last year that
little port made a profit for the Government of Canada of about
half a million dollars. It is blessed with deep water, close
access to U.S. markets and so on and so forth. It is ideally
situated, if you wish, and blessed with a good geography.
The reason I am concerned about this port in terms of
privatization is simply that there is a group out of New York and
New Jersey that wants to take over this port. All members on
both sides of the House have to be concerned about this because
the group that wants to take over this port is a large
conglomerate from the United States. They are actually in the
sand and gravel or aggregate business. They are big, extremely
big.
The reason we are concerned in New Brunswick is that the
aggregate business in the United States is controlled by a group
of families. In fact, the shipping of aggregate is controlled by
a group of families who are notorious, and many people refer to
them as organized crime. It is an industry that is practically
impossible for a Canadian company to break into. The only way to
get into the aggregate business if you want to ship into New York
or New Jersey is to be owned by the Americans. The Americans
have set their sights on taking over this port.
I know the parliamentary secretary will find this very
interesting. On May 20, 1997—and as the minister just said a
few minutes ago, the legislation died on the Order Paper and
obviously was not passed before the last election—these people
from New Jersey had a plan to take over the port.
1625
Now this is interesting. Please hon. parliamentary secretary
listen very intently to this. They hired two former members of
Parliament as consultants to expedite the transfer of that port
into the hands of these Americans. The two former members of
Parliament, one of them being Paul Zed, the other Doug Young, a
former minister of transport, were hired to lobby the federal
government to allow the transfer of that port into their hands.
Not only did they attempt to get the port into their hands, in
doing so they presented a 40 page document to the province of New
Brunswick to assist them in expediting the transfer of the port
into their hands.
We know that they hired two former members of Parliament to
assist them, but they did not stop there. They hired a former
member of the New Brunswick legislature and a former cabinet
minister from the province of New Brunswick to assist them on the
provincial side.
An hon. member: What party was he from?
Mr. Greg Thompson: It was obviously the Liberal Party. He
is a former minister in Mr. McKenna's government. The name of
that individual is Mr. Al Lacey.
They vehemently denied that they had a secret plan to take over
the port. In discussions with the premier of the province of New
Brunswick in early August this year, he denied flatly to me as a
member of Parliament that this group out of New Jersey and New
York had any design on taking over the Bayside port. He had to
eat his words two days later when this document was secretly
released to me. The Atlantic television network actually aired
this nationwide, when one of the consultants was lying through
his teeth in regard to the intent of these individuals out of New
York and New Jersey.
On speaking to the department of economic development yesterday,
the owner of this particular group, an individual by the name of
Randy Waterman, has all doors of government open to him. Why?
Because they are hiring the best consultants they know how. That
is done with the aid of a lot of money, to get through the doors
of the ministers here and the ministers back in New Brunswick.
That is why this bill is flawed. It does not allow the citizens
of the province of New Brunswick or any other province in this
country protection from unwanted residents of the United States,
United States businessmen coming here and taking over our ports.
The group is no slouch when it comes to doing business. This
group is a multilayered group of companies. Here are some of the
companies which Mr. Randy Waterman is involved with: New York
Sand and Gravel, Amboy Aggregates, McCormick Aggregates,
McCormick Materials. They have also set up a dummy corporation
in New Brunswick called Charlotte County Ports. Does this not
sound much better, Charlotte County Ports? Everyone would
believe it is a home grown company, only to find out that it is
100% owned by these characters out of New York and New Jersey.
It does not end there. Bayside Materials Handling Inc. is
another company they set up as a front for their New York-New
Jersey operation. It does not end there. When they pay their
bills they do not pay them through any of these companies. They
pay them through a company called Trapp Hill Holdings.
The interesting thing is you never speak to anyone on the
telephone that represents these companies in New York and New
Jersey. They will not correspond with a member of Parliament.
They will not correspond with anyone. They are silent. Who
speaks on their behalf? Mr. Doug Young and Mr. Paul Zed, former
members of Parliament who sat on that side of the House. That
tells us how far they have infiltrated the levels of government
in this country when they can hire former members of Parliament
and transport ministers to carry their case forward to the
federal government.
The present transport minister is being petitioned or lobbied at
this very moment to reduce all shipping fees. Not only to reduce
all shipping fees but to eliminate them completely so this
company out of New York and New Jersey can compete with its
nearest competitors in the marketplace in the United States of
America.
It is absolutely ludicrous to think the government would
entertain doing that.
1630
I spoke yesterday with the regional manager in Nova Scotia. He
told me that they approached the government to eliminate the fees
so they could compete with their closest competitor, a company
named Martin Marietta from the United States, that was working
out of Canso, Nova Scotia. Again it is an American company, and
a Canadian company cannot export into the United States unless
and until it controls either the shipping lines or the companies
on the New York-New Jersey harbourfront.
These companies have been under investigation for 15 years by
the FBI, and these characters over there are entertaining doing
business with them? The province of New Brunswick goes haywire
when we try to talk sense about these companies.
Who is being paid off? Who would have access to the premier of
New Brunswick tomorrow on a moment's notice? I do not think I
would. Who else in the House would? If we were to hire the best
lobbyist in New Brunswick, a lobbyist who is intimately connected
with the province, we would have access to its premier and to the
minister of economic development who wants to be the premier of
New Brunswick.
it is critically important if the legislation goes through that
the make-up of these boards has the clout to keep such people out
of Canada. We still have to exercise a degree of independence in
terms of our economy and how we build it. We do not need these
types of people in Canada. We do not want these people taking
over our ports. That is why we have to beef up the legislation.
We must ensure that individuals with the big dollars cannot come
up from the south to take us over.
I hope to speak later to the same issue.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Halifax West, health care; the hon. member for
Dartmouth, human resources development; the hon. member for
Waterloo-Wellington, trade; the hon. member for Charlotte, health.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
do in fact support the principle of the legislation to privatize
the administration of ports in Canada. We support it because, up
to now, these ports were managed by a federal agency. We are sure,
given the management of these ports in recent years, that they will
be better off not managed by a federal agency, and I congratulate
the government warmly for having the humility to understand this in
introducing this legislation.
We therefore support the principle of the legislation, but we
have amendments, because we feel it needs improving in certain
important areas. I am thinking specifically of clause 8. It
provides that certain ports may be managed by local authorities.
The principle is obviously an excellent one, and the conditions the
government is setting for transferring management of the port to a
local authority are reasonable.
They include the port's having a certain financial autonomy, a link
to major roads and rail lines, and so forth. That all makes good
sense.
1635
The problem is that the vendor or transferor, before
transferring the property, should return it to good condition,
especially when requiring that it be financially autonomous.
As a result of the, shall we say, less than favourable
management of these ports in recent years, some of them are in need
of major repairs. There are 324 ports in Canada and the paltry sum
of $125 million is all that has been set aside for this operation.
We will try, through our amendments, to have this amount increased.
Still on the topic of ports, we were not in the least
surprised to learn in this bill that the federal government wants
to divest itself of all financial responsibility. It will no
longer pay anything towards port administration.
I said that this did not surprise us in the least and, without
wanting to jump to any conclusions, we even think that unloading
this financial burden may have been one of the reasons for
introducing this bill.
When one intends to stop paying, it is not normal to want to
keep calling the shots. A look at clause 14 concerning the
composition of boards of directors makes it clear that Ottawa
intends to retain control of these ports through third parties.
What does clause 14 say?
(a) the Governor in Council appoints one individual
nominated by the Minister;
(b) the municipalities—
(c) the province or provinces—
(d) the Governor in Council appoints the remaining
individuals nominated by the Minister in consultation with
users—
When you consider that between seven and eleven directors will
be appointed, three of them not by Ottawa, the fact remains that
the majority of seats will still be subject to government
appointment, even if the government says it is going to consult,
yes, consult local authorities. We propose that, instead of
consultation, appointments be direct and unconditional.
To date, the St. Lawrence Seaway has cost the public $7
billion and brings in $70 million annually. I do not think there
are many private corporations that would be happy with a return as
low as 1% on their investment, and yet that is the return generated
by the seaway.
The concern regarding the profitability of the seaway, which
we should be looking at, is the reduced traffic on the seaway. We
think things will only get worse given that Saskatchewan grain en
route to Germany goes through Vancouver and the Panama canal rather
than via Thunder Bay and the seaway, which would seem to be the
more logical route geographically. Similarly, grain going to
Russia is sent to Vladivostok, which is a bit odd, because it is in
Siberia.
So there is some inconsistency, which may come from a conflict
in rates between the railway and the seaway, and which will be of
concern to the new administrators, if the seaway is to recover its
life and vigour.
That summarizes our positions on this first series of
amendments being debated today.
We support the principle of the bill, on the condition that the
major amendments we are proposing are approved by this House, which
I encourage it to do.
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to
rise on this grouping but something was said this afternoon that
I think needs some clarification.
1640
To begin with, I dare say that Bill C-9 has been refined with
consultation and consensus from all stakeholders. It has been
refined like no bill I have ever seen in my nine years in this
place. As some will recall, it was Bill C-44 in the last
parliament.
I will deal with the last item first, the very strong words of
the hon. member for Charlotte who discussed the great port of
Bayside. It is a great port. I agree wholeheartedly with the
hon. member. He understands his constituency well. That wharf
is in excellent shape and is capable of handling all the shipping
interests in that port.
The hon. member spoke of individuals like the hon. Doug Young,
once a minister of the crown in this place, and Mr. Paul Zed, a
distinguished member who served his time here as a parliamentary
secretary. These gentlemen are involved in a lobby organization
and are doing their thing in the private sector. I say good for
them.
However the hon. member for Charlotte must understand that if
they are doing work for individuals it has nothing to do with
whatever the government is proposing to do with Bayside and what
will eventually develop for Bayside as a divested port.
It must be made clear that the port of Bayside is having
discussions with the Government of Canada through what is called
the Bayside Port Steering Committee Inc., which is made up of
local users of the port of Bayside. They are currently, with all
due diligence, putting together negotiations with Transport
Canada to transfer the port at the discretion of the government
at the end of the day.
If the hon. member has any names of any individuals or any
municipalities that want to come forward to offer their
representations to the government, the minister or the Ministry
of Transport, they will be given equal opportunity to be heard on
the matter of having Bayside divested to them under a negotiated
deal. Let them come forward. We welcome everyone's
participation in the process.
Just to clarify as well for the hon. member for Charlotte, the
Bayside port steering committee again is made up of local users
in the area and is chaired by Mr. Fred Nicholson. He is a
gentleman who clearly has nothing to do with the allegations the
hon. member put forward today, along with the very strong
descriptions of the individuals he put forward.
The hon. member referred to Mr. Waterman. He is an American, as
I understand it. He wants to develop the lands adjacent to the
port for aggregate. I stand to be corrected, but Mr. Waterman
has no interest in running a port. He wants the stone next door
to the port.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a point of order. I have a document which disproves that.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has
to listen to the debate. He may disagree with what the
parliamentary secretary is saying, but it appears the
parliamentary secretary may have disagreed with what he said.
With all respect to the hon. member, we are not on points of
order during his speech. This is a debate and people do have
different opinions, and I think we might hear them out.
Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has some
information he would like to give me to clarify the issue, I
would be more than willing to receive it because it would be
useful in the overall agenda.
I stress to the hon. member that it is not the intention of the
government, the minister or the Ministry of Transport to take one
offer from one group or one individual and say there is your
port.
There are many aspects to the dual track of port divestiture the
government proceeded with many months ago that allow for
representation not just from one but from many and all who want
to come forward to take the opportunity to buy a port.
1645
Beyond that I want to quickly address amendments Nos. 1, 2 and
3. I believe the minister has already addressed amendment No. 12
in this group, so I will not touch on that again. He was very
thorough in his examination of No. 12.
Motion No. 1, from the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, proposes that the number of
directors of a port authority could be increased by additional
municipal appointments.
Right back to 1995 the national marine policy clearly stated
that we are trying to put these ports on a commercial footing.
That means that we want to put the user representatives on the
board with the majority. We do not need government
representatives on a committee that is running a port. That is
not the idea of either the national marine policy of 1995 or Bill
C-9. We want it commercialized. In order to do that, we need to
have the majority of users on a board from the user
representatives list that is supplied by the minister.
It is important that if we get into a constituency in British
Columbia, I believe it is North Fraser, there are eight or nine
municipalities bordering the waterway of the defined port.
Members can imagine if we are going to construct a board of seven
members because we do not want one too much bigger than seven. We
have a choice of seven, nine or eleven. On what was supposed to
be a board of seven there will be eight municipal representatives
and four users. Boy, that is a lot of government representation.
I do not think anybody in this place wants to see all that
government representation on a board with the fiduciary
responsibility of running a corporation to make a port
successful. We do not want to see that, so unfortunately we will
not be support Motion No. 1.
We will also not be supporting Motion No. 2 because, quite
frankly, it is redundant. The minister already has the authority
to specify the extent of property to be included within a port.
That can be found under subclauses 8.2(c), (d) and (e).
Finally, on Motion No. 3, we cannot support it because the
minister is going to have to exercise some responsibility on who
is going to put forward the names for a board. Imagine if it was
left just to the user to present the list and then it
automatically became the representation on the board. What if
the users got together and decided, jokingly, heaven forbid, they
would all be lawyers. Do we want all lawyers running a port?
Probably not.
An hon. member: You have a couple over there.
Mr. Stan Keyes: I am not a lawyer, but I have a lot of
respect for most lawyers. Mr. Speaker is a lawyer and I respect
the Speaker.
However, we cannot support this particular motion. We need an
acceptable mix of knowledge and expertise on a board. That can
happen if there is a preview of the list of names. That list of
names should not be sheltered to just four. The names will come
forward from the users and then the minister will make the
selection from those names presented on the list in order to make
the mix work well for a particular port.
I look forward to debating the next three groups of motions, if
we ever get to them.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order made earlier,
the divisions on the proposed motions are deemed to have been
demanded and deferred.
(Divisions deemed demanded and deferred)
The Deputy Speaker: The next group is Group No, 2,
Motions Nos. 4, 10, 11 and 20, and 21, being the one introduced
earlier today. Debate.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved:
That
Bill C-9, in Clause 31, be amended
“(3) Subject to subsection (4), a port authority may not
mortgage,”
(4) A port authority may, if authorized in the letters patent,
create a security interest in fixtures on federal real property
to the same extent as Her Majesty could create such an interest
and may, instead of Her Majesty, execute and deliver the
documents required for that purpose.
(5) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4),
“security interest” means an
interest in or charge on property or fixtures mentioned in those
subsections to secure
the discharge of an obligation or liability of the port authority.
(6) A grant under subsection (4) may be effected by any
instrument by which an interest in real property may be granted
by a private person under the laws in force in the province in
which the federal real property or fixtures are situated.”
That
Bill C-9, in Clause 45, be amended by adding after line 38 on
page 28 the following:
“(3.1) The port authority may exercise the powers under
subsection (3) to the same extent as Her Majesty could exercise
those powers and may, instead of Her Majesty, execute and deliver
the documents required for that purpose.”
That Bill C-9, in Clause 46, be amended
a) by replacing lines 3 to 7 on page 29 with the following:
“property that it manages but it may
(a) without the issuance of supplementary letters patent, grant road
allowances or
easements, rights of way or licences for utilities, services or access; and
(b) to the extent authorized in the letters patent,
(i) exchange federal real property for other real property of comparable
market value
subject to the issuance of supplementary letters patent that describe the
other real
property as federal real property, and
(ii) dispose of fixtures on federal real property.
(1.1) The port authority may exercise the powers under paragraph (1)(a) or
(b) to
the same extent as Her Majesty could exercise those powers and may,
instead of Her
Majesty, execute and deliver the documents required for that
purpose.”
“(3) Les concessions peuvent être faites par un acte qui, en vertu des
lois de la
province de situation de l'immeuble fédéral, peut servir à faire des
concessions entre
sujets de droit privé.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 98 the
following:
“195.1 Section 589 of the Act is replaced by the following:
589. All fines recovered under this Part shall be paid over to
the Receiver General and shall form part of the Consolidated
Revenue Fund.”
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, who was it that coined the
phrase, it is like déja vu all over again. In the last
Parliament it was called Bill C-44 and today we know it as Bill
C-9. It is with a great deal of privilege that I speak to the
report stage amendments of the Canada Marine Act.
This bill fills the 1995 national marine policy to commercialize
and strengthen Canada's marine sector.
1650
What I would like to do is provide my colleagues opposite and on
this side of the House with an overview of the subjects covered
in the bill. The proposed act makes it easier for ports to
operate according to business principles. It enables the
Minister of Transport to commercialize the operations of the
seaway. It improves the way pilotage authorities operate.
I want to take a moment and thank the members opposite, in
particular the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, for his
praise and congratulations on the work we have done in regard to
pilotage authorities. However, not all the work has been
completed there as is evident in the bill.
Part I of the bill establishes a new form of port corporation
and it is going to be called a Canada port authority. The basic
principles for the port authority operations are that they will
not have to have recourse to the federal treasury other than for
emergency relief. They will be incorporated or continued by
letters patent. They will be non-share capital corporations,
must recover costs from fees charged and must comply with
corporate governing provisions that we have brought into the
bill, some of which come from the Canada Business Corporations
Act.
In line with these principles, the powers of the port authority
include commercial freedom to price its services, the powers of a
natural person for the purpose of operating a port, authority to
borrow on open markets but, with regard to federal real property,
the port authority may only secure loans by pledging revenue
streams and movable fixtures and not federal land.
Within this group of motions the government seeks to clarify and
simplify some of the procedures for transactions that involve
crown lands. We are also clearing up any defective section
reference relating to the Canada Shipping Act.
Generally, port authorities will also be agents of the crown
allowing them to pay grants in lieu of taxes. In some cases,
municipalities never received this before. Agent status
reinforces the port community from provincial taxation and
regulation. This is necessary to allow our major ports to remain
competitive in a global environment. Ports will not be able to
borrow as agents and will have to convince commercial lenders of
the merits of their proposed investments. The crown will not back
up port loans.
Bill C-9 strikes a balance also by limiting the crown's exposure
to actions taken where the port is an agent. This gives the
ports the autonomy they need to operate on a commercial basis
without unduly exposing the crown to future liabilities.
Part II of the act requires the repeal of the Public Harbours
and Ports Facilities Act. It then provides the minister with
various options for the administration of ports remaining in the
federal system. This ties into the 1995 national marine policy
decision regarding the transfer of port facilities that do not
play a national role.
It set up a new streamlined regulatory regime for any remaining
public ports similar to that for the new port authorities.
Part II also requires that the minister report to Parliament
each year on the divestitures that took place during that year.
Part III of the act sets out a new framework for management of
the Canadian portions of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The minister
may use agreements to assign the management of part or all of the
seaway to a not for profit corporation or to any other person. An
agreement may include management of the operation of the seaway,
transfer of assets, et cetera.
The existing seaway authority may be dissolved by governor in
council at an appropriate date to allow such agreements to
proceed. The government will retain ownership of the seaway
property and regulatory control over navigation in the seaway.
Part VII of the bill provides a more commercial environment for
the operation of our pilotage authorities. It allows pilotage
tariffs to take effect after expiry of a 30-day notice. If there
are objections, any reviews of tariff increases by the Canadian
Transportation Agency generally must be done within 120 days or
less. The borrowing limits for pilotage authorities are to be
set by the governor in council.
The bill states that no appropriations can be made from the
government to pilotage authorities except in respect of
emergencies. The chairman of the pilotage authority will be part
time or full time and appointed by governor in council in
consultation with the users and the authority.
The bill also requires that there will be a ministerial review
of various functions of the pilotage authorities in consultation
with both the authorities and the users. The review will be
completed in a one year period after the provision for the review
comes into force.
The remainder of the bill provides a review of the whole act in
the fifth year and it receives royal assent.
1655
No matter how finely tuned we have managed to construct this
bill over the last close to three years, it is clear that it is
not the end of the day and a review is there built in to ensure
that if there are any further refinements, they will be made. It
provides for a regime for enforcement of regulations established
pursuant to the bill.
It has been almost three years in the works with, as I say
again, much consensus building on the part of all of the
stakeholders involved.
I urge all hon. members in this House to support Bill C-9.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Motions Nos. 4, 10, 11 and 20 are essentially
housekeeping amendments. That being the case and in view of the
agreement which we made to limit debate here, I would seek
unanimous consent of the House to put Group 2 immediately and
proceed to the following motions which are of much more
substance. We only have half an hour left.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
as suggested by the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Charlotte
is not confined to speaking to this grouping. If he wants to
make his remarks, he can make it in the next grouping. I am sure
the House will be permissible for that.
If the hon. member for Charlotte wants to agree to the proposal
put forward by the member for the Reform, he can speak at the
third grouping.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is: Is their consent to
proceed now with Group 3?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Then the questions on Motions Nos. 4,
10, 11, 20 and 21 are deemed to have been put, a division
demanded and deferred.
(Divisions deemed demanded and deferred)
The Deputy Speaker: The debate now will proceed on Group
3, Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. The
motions are deemed to have been moved, seconded and read.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 38, be amended by adding
after line 15 on page 25 the following:
“(1.1) A port authority shall establish a code of conduct
and system of practices respecting avoidance of conflict of
interest by its directors and officers.”
That Bill C-9, in Clause 41, be amended by replacing
line 4 on page 26 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 41, be amended by adding
after line 11 on page 26 the following:
“(2.1) An examiner shall be a person appointed by the
Minister from suitable persons in the office of the Auditor
General of Canada or the Department of Justice.”
That Bill C-9, in Clause 41, be amended by replacing
lines 24 to 25 on page 26 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 85, be amended by adding
after line 8 on page 54 the following:
“(1.1) A not-for-profit corporation shall, in respect
of its operation of the Seaway establish a code of conduct and
system of practices respecting avoidance of conflict of interest
by its directors and officers.”
That Bill C-9, in Clause 87, be amended by replacing
lines 29 to 30 on page 54 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 87, be amended by adding
after line 36 on page 54 the following:
“(2.1) An examiner shall be a person appointed by the
Minister from suitable persons in the office of the Auditor
General of Canada or the Department of Justice.”
That Bill C-9, in Clause 87, be amended by replacing
line 3 on page 55 with the following:
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its courtesy in
speeding things up here.
When I spoke earlier today I was looking at things which have
already happened, things which I thought might have been improved
in the bill. Now I would like to speak specifically to the 10
related motions which Reform has on the order paper and which
call for greater transparency and accountability in the
commercialization of the ports and the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Unlike the amendments which we introduced in committee, these
amendments are not stakeholder driven. Instead, they reflect the
dedication of our party to the principle of public accountability
of public institutions.
This new bill will do away with Ports Canada which is known
fondly by its friends and admirers as “Pork Canada”. While we
have the opportunity, let's build some safeguards into the new
regime.
These amendments I am going to pair as I speak because they are
mirror amendments relating to port authorities and to the seaway.
For example, Motions Nos. 5 and 13 say basically the same thing,
but because of the nature of the bill we had to write amendments
to apply to the two situations.
These address the problem of conflict of interest. Hopefully,
they will avoid situations such as the one that developed when
NavCan was created. I recall that the government's financial
adviser on privatization slid laterally into work for NavCan
before the financial adviser's contract had even expired.
Incredibly, Transport Canada made no objection to this clear
conflict. This is the type of thing we would like to avoid.
Motions Nos. 7 and 15 would tighten up section 87 which provides
for an outside audit every five years. Notwithstanding that five
years is an inordinately long time between examinations, we will
accept that. The amendment proposes that the outside examiner be
totally independent of the Minister of Transport and that the
person or persons come from the office of the auditor general or
from the Department of Justice.
These departments have the experience and the background to
enable them to spot problems and avoid repetition of mistakes.
1700
Motions Nos. 8 and 16 would remove the power of the minister to
adjudicate between the special examiner and a port authority's
audit committee.
One of the objectives of commercialization is to remove the
minister from the decision making process. This is what the bill
is about. If there is a problem with an audit, an arm's length
organization, and we are suggesting the Canadian Transportation
Agency, should be the adjudicator. Its determination would then
be reported to the transport committee. Ideally it should be the
transport committee itself that would act as adjudicator but
since our parliamentary committees as constituted are quite
toothless, the CTA has proposed to be the referee.
Finally, Motions Nos. 9 and 17 are merely consequential to the
other eight motions. They simply remove the power of the
minister to interfere in the selection of auditors with respect
to port authorities or the seaway.
Because everyone was courteous and allowed me to get this on the
record, I will relinquish the remainder of my time.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want to
point out a couple of things to the parliamentary secretary in
terms of accountability and that would be referring to Motion No.
5.
It is interesting to note and can members believe that the
company of which I was speaking, the American company out of the
New York-New Jersey area, has representation on the steering
committee that is charged with overseeing the orderly transition
from a public facility to a private facility. Would this not be
comparable to putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop in a
sense? Think about it. This Randy Waterman from New York-New
Jersey who owns a series of layered companies involved in the
aggregate business has his own paid representative on that board.
This is not just an ordinary employee who sits on that board
representing Randy Waterman, McCormick Aggregates, McCormick
Materials, Bayside Materials Handling, Charlotte County Ports,
New York Sand and Gravel, Amboy Aggregates. This is not just an
ordinary employee. He is a fellow by the name of Al Lacey.
Who is Al Lacey? Al Lacey owns Lacey and Associates. Al Lacey
is a former minister of economic development in the province of
New Brunswick. The consummate insider.
An hon. member: What party?
Mr. Greg Thompson: What party? That was the Liberal
Party spelled with a large L. He is in daily consultation
with Mr. Paul Zed, former Liberal member of Parliament who was
defeated in the last election. Mr. Paul Zed is in business with
Mr. Doug Young, the former minister of transport.
Think about this. Would there be a possible conflict of
interest? Doug Young, the former minister of transport charged
with the overseeing of this bill. He was the minister who
introduced the very bill that we were talking about in the last
Parliament. He was the minister. Now he is being paid by these
interests out of New Jersey to represent them in overseeing the
orderly transition—they call it orderly transition—from a
public facility to a private facility. Here we have this group of
insiders all being paid by Mr. Randy Waterman to ensure that they
gain control of that port.
The parliamentary secretary was given the wrong information and
that is why I interjected quite vigorously on a point of order. I
know I was ruled correctly by you, Mr. Speaker, that it was not a
legitimate point of order but this is legitimate.
This is the very document in my hands, 40 pages in length, that
details page by page with the numbers there to present their case
to the province of New Brunswick and the federal government why
this port should be given to them. The name of the document is
“Bayside Port Acquisition and Development Proposal”.
1705
Acquisition. If we look in any dictionary, acquisition means
assuming ownership, taking ownership. They want to take ownership
of that port. I have a document here which the government denied
existed for a number of weeks until finally the document was
leaked to yours truly. That is why the make-up and integrity of
that board is so important.
The parliamentary secretary did mention an individual by the
name of Fred Nicholson. Fred Nicholson is an honourable man. He
is a lawyer. He is a very bright individual. I want to point
this out—
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think it is a rule of this House that props should not be used
during a speech.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is absolutely
correct. I had cautioned the hon. member for Charlotte. I
wagged my finger at him when he started waving the document, but
since he was simply turning pages I thought he was looking for
something in it he might quote from and I did not get up and
chastise him. I would not want to chastise the hon. member and
he would not want that either. So I know he will not want to use
props. I invite him to continue his remarks without any aids.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for putting
that document forward in the sense of a prop but I was leafing
through it.
I wanted to make a point with regard to Mr. Nicholson. He is an
honourable man. He is representing the community well. He does a
fine job, as do a number of the individuals that make up that
body. There is no question about that.
The point I am making is that the very people who have designs
on taking over that port have representation on the board, the
steering committee, which is absolutely bizarre. Hence the
chicken coop and the fox scenario. That is exactly what it is.
It does not end there. In this document when I did make it
public when it was leaked to me—I am not going to use it as a
prop, Mr. Speaker, but only to pick some of the numbers out of it
because it is important to note. In this document which is 42
pages in length the proponents of this project, in other words
the people from New York and New Jersey who want to take over the
port, no less than 14 times in this document do they mention that
unless and until they are given absolute control of the port and
the waiving of all fees, they could not possibly proceed with
their project.
The parliamentary secretary is partially right in the sense that
the aggregate project does not involve his department as much as
it would the province of New Brunswick or the department of
economic development. But the point we make is that some of the
properties in which they want to do this piece of business are
actually owned by the Government of Canada. I think there is an
obligation to ensure that there is an orderly transition with
regard to who takes over those properties and what they are going
to be used for.
As I mentioned before, that particular company because its
nearest competitor is Martin Marietta, an American owned company
out of Canso, Nova Scotia, is saying that it has to have all
federal wharfage fees waived. Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker?
The company says that all fees have to be waived in order to make
the project a success in order for it to be able to compete with
its nearest competitor which again is an American company.
1710
It is absolutely bizarre that the federal government would even
entertain the waiving of any fees associated with setting up an
American company in Canada. It is absolutely ludicrous that it
would entertain doing that.
Going back to the motion in question, the integrity of that
board and the responsibility of the board and the steering
committee is very critical to the success of this bill. Unless
we have top quality people with no interest in assuming ownership
of a port that is to be transferred from the public sector to the
private sector, unless we have that orderly transition, we will
all be in trouble. What it does is it opens up the door for
individuals like the New York and New Jersey individuals to come
up here with bags full of money and find that they get their way.
This is terribly wrong.
I support the strengthening of anything in the bill that will
tighten the loopholes on the membership of that steering
committee which will eventually determine who will own the port.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to the
hon. member for Charlotte that there are several other parties,
including Charlotte County Ports Inc., that have expressed
interest in the possibility of assuming ownership of the port of
Bayside.
I suppose the true test of the allegations the member for
Charlotte made here today under the protection of the House of
Commons would be if he would leave this place through those doors
and repeat his story outside. Given what he said and some of the
pretty tough language in his descriptions of some of the
individuals involved, I am not a lawyer but I would probably
caution him on leaving this place and saying outside of this
place some of the things he said.
Let us get on with some of the concerns the hon. member for
Charlotte and the hon. member from the Reform Party have in
regard to governance and accountability of the port authorities
under Bill C-9.
As the Minister of Transport has said, the federal government
will give leadership in attaining national goals and in nurturing
national programs and institutions.
Canada port authorities are specifically identified as strategic
links in both national and international transportation and
logistic chains. Crown agency status emphasizes that we are not
seeking to privatize ports but to constitute port authorities as
important instruments of federal public policy while at the same
time providing for their increased commercialization.
We have made sure that port boards will be responsive to user
concerns. We do this without losing sight of their
accountability to the wider communities at the municipal,
provincial or federal levels.
To foster good management, the bill gives a framework that
guides port boards without frustrating day to day decision
making, including such features as a code of conduct and
provision for a periodic special examination. CPAs are to have a
public code of conduct for directors, officers and employees
designed to prevent real and perceived conflicts of interest. I
trust that would make the hon. member for the Reform Party more
satisfied that what is included in this bill does protect and is
designed to prevent real and perceived conflicts of interest.
The code is expected to stipulate that prior to accepting an
appointment to the board of directors, every director to be shall
notify the CPA board of directors in writing of any business
activity which would pose an actual, potential or perceived
conflict of interest. Another point that the member for
Charlotte might want to recognize.
Where the particulars of a given transaction or changing
circumstances create a future conflict of interest, the code will
place a director under a similar obligation to make full,
immediate and written disclosure to the other directors and to
refrain from participating in any related discussions or
decisions of the board.
Some of the other controls that apply to the ports include the
letters patent and any changes to them must be approved by the
government.
1715
Ports cannot dispose of federal land. Agent status will be
limited to core port activities. Non-core activities will not
receive agent status. The government will have to approve which
non-core activities a port may undertake.
Ports will not be able to borrow as agents. They will have to
convince commercial lenders of the merits of their proposed
investments. The crown will not back up port loans. Borrowing
limits will be established for each port. Ports will be directly
responsible for any breach of duty or a contractual obligation to
a third party.
The crown will specify through regulations the extent of
insurance a port must carry. The Minister of Transport will
specify the maximum terms of leases. We have put measures into
the bill to protect the crown from liabilities of the ports and
to ensure they are accountable.
Perhaps the most important accountability mechanism stems from
the fact that ports will have to raise their financing in the
private sector. Port development aspirations will be subjected
to ordinary measures of commercial risk. The law ensures that
with few exceptions appropriations cannot be made for port
deficits. This means they have to be more efficient than they
are today and that the government will not cover their
liabilities.
Canada port authorities will have a high degree of transparency
through rigorous disclosure to the public. Bill C-9 requires
each port authority to provide for the following: a public
annual and financial report, a public annual audit, a public land
use plan, an annual general meeting open to the public at which
directors and senior officers are available to answer questions
from the public, disclosure of remuneration and expenses of board
members, and details of port operating expenses.
The Reform's idea of a special examination quite often gets
confused with the need for an annual financial audit while each
procedure makes a report on the total operations. The financial
audit answers these questions. Did the port follow the rules? Do
the records provide a full and fair disclosure of how the port
was run?
In a special examination, as suggested by a member of the Reform
Party, different questions are asked. Does the port have the
right set of rules? Do its procedures and reporting systems help
the port in meeting its true obligations, or should they be
changed?
In Bill C-9 the minister plays a key role in fine tuning port
objectives through the letters patent and other procedures. This
means that a special examination will be important to the
minister in considering periodic changes to the letters patent in
response to evolving conditions.
Port authorities are also covered under the Access to
Information Act which further strengthens their accountability to
all stakeholders. In addition we have taken measures to ensure
that ports must borrow in their own name and not in the name of
the crown to emphasize to lenders that the crown does not stand
behind these obligations.
These are appropriate arrangements to support the
commercialization of our ports. I thank members opposite for
their participation in this stage of the bill and in this block
of amendments.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to comment on Group No. 3.
I add my support to the hon. member for Charlotte. I am not as
familiar with the issue as he is but I have to ask myself a
question. If a company has a good and viable project that makes
sense to the community and everybody involved, why does it have
to hire a former provincial minister of economic development to
support it? Why does it have to hire a former member of
Parliament to support it? Even more so, is it right to hire a
former minister of transport who actually drafted and developed
the legislation? Why does it have to hire that team? As a
fellow said to me the other day, it does not pass the smell test
right off the bat.
Motion No. 5 seems to be a reasonable request. In part it
reads:
This only makes sense. It is in line with all organizations
that establish standards. Even the ISO 9000 sets up a system of
practices and standards and a code of conduct, which is only
appropriate.
We agree. It is more accountable and we support it.
1720
Motion No. 6 updates clause 41 to include subsections 38(1) and
(1.1). It only makes sense. It goes along with clause 41 and we
support it.
Motion No. 7 states in part:
This again makes sense to us. It assures credibility. It
ensures the examination will be done properly. It removes the
potential of political influence from the position. We agree the
examiner should be appointed by the minister from suitable
persons in the office of the Auditor General of Canada or the
Department of Justice.
We are against Motion No. 8. It seems to make the system far
more cumbersome and difficult to handle. It makes it less
efficient and contradicts the whole purpose of streamlining the
act.
We are against Motion No. 9. It eliminates the auditor as far
as we can tell. It does not make sense to us to eliminate the
auditor function. We think it is appropriate to leave the
auditor in place.
Basically that is our position on those motions. Now I will
move to Motion No. 13 and onward.
Motion No. 13 states in part:
That is exactly the same theory and purpose as the former
amendment with regard to a code of conduct and a system of
practices. We agree with Motion No. 13. It is very reasonable
and we support it.
Motion No. 14 is linked to Motion No. 13. If we support Motion
No. 13 we pretty much have to support Motion No. 14.
Motion No. 15 states in part:
That is much the same. It is a good position. It is
appropriate. We will be supporting it.
Motion No. 16 states in part:
“shall be referred to the Canadian Transportation Agency and
the Agency shall make a final determination with respect to it
and shall report its determination to the Standing Committee—
We say no to this motion. It is very cumbersome. It is far
less efficient. Again it contradicts the purpose of the bill,
which is to commercialize the exercise, make it more efficient
and put the decisions into the hands of the users. We are
against Motion No. 16.
Motion No. 17 would delete clause 89. We are against this
motion. Clause 89 allows the minister to change the auditors if
he feels it appropriate, and we support that. We think that
clause should remain so we will be voting no to this amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, it will soon be 5.30 p.m. I
would ask you to seek unanimous consent for each party to have five
minutes to speak to the motions in Group No. 4.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The motions in Group No. 3 are deemed
to have been put, divisions demanded and deferred.
(Divisions deemed demanded and deferred)
The Deputy Speaker: Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 18 and 19,
is the next group of motions.
Is there unanimous consent for the proposal of the hon. member
for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans that each party have five
minutes starting now to speak to Group No. 4?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The motions in Group No. 4 are deemed
to have been moved, seconded, and read by the Chair.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ)
moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 15, on page 77, the following:
“133.1 (1) For greater certainty, on the continuance of a
harbour commission under section 10 as a port authority, on the
continuance of a local port corporation under section 12 as a
port authority or, on the coming into force of an agreement
entered into under subsection 80(5) with the St-Lawrence Seaway
Authority, any person who, at the time of the coming into force
of those sections or subsection was employed by one of those
bodies and remains employed, may, if that person was a
contributor under the Public Service Superanuation Act, elect to
remain subject to the terms of the Public Service Superannuation
Act, the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act and the
regulations made under those Acts.”
(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying out
the purposes of subsection (1).”
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved:
(a) replacing the heading before line 1 on page 79 with the
following:
“Comparable Employee Benefits”
(b) adding after line 8 on page 79 the following:
“138.2 A person who has entered into an agreement under
subsection 80(5) and every port authority shall take all
reasonable steps to negotiate with the President of the Treasury
Board a pension transfer agreement in accordance with section
40.2 of the Public Service Superannuation Act in respect of
employees referred to in paragraph 130(b), 132(b) or 135(1)(b),
as the case may be.
138.3 For the purposes of sections 138.4 to 138.6, “employee
benefits” includes coverage and benefits in respect of
employer-sponsored pension plans and of life, income protection,
health care and dental care insurance plans.
138.4 A person who has entered into an agreement under
subsection 80(5) shall, in respect of an employee referred to in
paragraph 130(b), provide employee benefits that
(a) begin on the day of the transfer under paragraph 80(6)(f)
or, if there is transitional coverage provided in respect of the
person under section 40.1 of the Public Service Superannuation
Act, on the expiry of the period of transitional coverage;
(b) are comparable to the employee benefits of the employee
immediately before the transfer under paragraph 80(6)(f) and at a
rate of contribution by the employee not greater than the rate
that was applicable in respect of the employee immediately before
that transfer; and
(c) end on the day on which an agreement to the contrary comes
into force between the person and the bargaining agent
representing the employee or, in the case of an unrepresented
employee, the person and the employee.
138.5 A port authority
shall, in respect of an employee referred to in paragraph 132(b),
provide employee benefits that
(a) begin on the day on which the port authority is continued
under subsection 12(1) or, if there is transitional coverage
provided in respect of the port authority under section 40.1 of
the Public Service Superannuation Act, on the expiry of the
period of transitional coverage;
(b) are comparable to the employee benefits of the employee
immediately before ceasing to be an employee of the local port
corporation and at a rate of contribution by the employee not
greater than the rate that was applicable in respect of the
employee immediately before ceasing to be an employee of the
local port corporation; and
(c) end on the day on which an agreement to the contrary comes
into force between the port authority and the bargaining agent
representing the employee or, in the case of an unrepresented
employee, the port authority and the employee.
138.6 A port
authority shall, in respect of an employee referred to in
paragraph 135(1)(b), provide employee benefits that
(a) begin on the day on which the port authority is deemed to be
incorporated under subsection 12(1) or, if there is transitional
coverage provided in respect of the port authority under section
40.1 of the Public Service Superannuation Act, on the expiry of
the period of transitional coverage;
(b) are comparable to the employee benefits of the employee
immediately before ceasing to be an employee of the Canada Ports
Corporation and at a rate of contribution by the employee not
greater than the rate that was applicable in respect of the
employee immediately before ceasing to be an employee of the
Canada Ports Corporation; and
(c) end on the day on which an agreement to the contrary comes
into force between the port authority and the bargaining agent
representing the employee or, in the case of an unrepresented
employee, the port authority and the employee.”
[Translation]
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the
debate on the fourth group of amendments.
In drafting the Canada Shipping Act, the government has made
human resources a priority. It has made an effort to ensure that
all affected employees, whether unionized or not, would be treated
fairly and it made sure the Canada Labour Code would be rigorously
adhered to at all stages, in both the spirit and the letter.
1725
In Bill C-9, the government has taken the position that
employees of federal organizations which will be commercialized,
divested or sold will be covered under comparable replacement
pension arrangements. This is thoroughly consistent with past
practices.
[English]
Under Bill C-9 the government has taken the position that
employees of a federal organization which will be commercialized,
divested or sold will be covered under comparable replacement
pension arrangements. This is thoroughly consistent with past
practices.
For example, recently transport employees at major airports have
been offered comparable pension plan coverage to that of the
public service plan. Similar arrangements were made for
employees affected by the transfer of air navigation services to
NavCan. The transfer provided employees with a parallel pension
plan where employees were no worse off as a result of their move
out of the public service.
By adding employment related provisions to its agreements with
these new employers, the government has been able to exert direct
influence to ensure that employees have been treated fairly with
regard to offers of employment and replacement benefit packages.
[Translation]
During the Standing Committee on Transportation's examination
of Bill C-9, an additional amendment was adopted to guarantee that
ports employees will be able to take advantage of the transitional
provisions recently established in the Public Service
Superannuation Act on an equal footing with the seaway employees.
When Treasury Board has given its approval to this new clause,
affected employees will be able to continue to participate in the
federal pension plan for a time after divesting, so as to allow the
new employer time to create, register and implement a new pension
plan.
[English]
There may be some discussion today about whether or not
transferred employees should continue to be covered under the
government's superannuation plan, but I point out that some of my
colleagues may propose that, when transferring to a new
retirement plan, affected employees should be able to transfer
their accumulated benefits.
I am pleased to say the government has responded to many of the
concerns raised to date on the issue of superannuation benefits
to transferred employees. Motion No. 19 in fact proposes to
amend the bill so that it covers all employees transferred to a
number of different situations: the seaway, a not for profit
corporation, a former local port corporation, and former
non-corporate ports which are the divisional ports managed by
Canada Ports Corporation.
Harbour commissions are the only group not included in this
list. They are not affected by these questions because of
existing coverage under their private benefit plans.
Motion No. 19 will ensure that new employers will have to offer
benefits that are comparable to what the employees had
immediately before the new employer took over and keep the
comparable benefits in place unless the employer and the
employees mutually agree to change them.
It will also set in place contribution rates that are not higher
than what was paid by the employees immediately before they were
taken over by the new employer. They will also begin their
benefit plans when they take over the employees or immediately
after any transitional coverage under federal plans. Finally
they will take all reasonable steps to negotiate a pension
transfer agreement with the Treasury Board.
The government has moved a long way toward meeting some of the
objectives of my colleagues on the other side. We cannot, for
reasons stated, move all the way to accommodate them but I think
we have made our best effort in the spirit of co-operation to get
the bill through.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in committee all opposition parties pressed the
government side to ensure that the superannuation benefits of
federal employees transferred over to the public ports and not
just port authorities would be protected. Instead, the
government with Motion No. 19, as near as I can determine from
what I have read, merely clarifies and solidifies the rights of
government employees moving to port authorities but does nothing
at all for employees moving into the public ports.
These employees, some with 10 or 15 years of service, will be
left out in the cold. They have fallen through the cracks. Their
pensions are not portable and the bill literally leaves them hung
out to dry.
1730
They are not great in numbers but nevertheless these are real
people. Some consideration should have been given to them.
Motion No. 18 really has the same deficiency. It does not
relate to people transferring into the public ports. However, as
I read that motion, it is a bit over generous to employees
transferring to port authorities. To some extent it negates the
intent of commercialization which was to get the government out
of the business of ports.
I think on one hand there are the employees of public ports who
are not going to be cared for at all. On the other hand, with
either Motion No. 18 or 19, fair enough, the port authority
people are being looked after. Motion No. 18 looks after them so
well that we will not support it. We will support Motion No. 19
but I am extremely disappointed that the government only did half
the job.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Madam
Speaker, in committee, I asked the Minister of Transport to stand
up to his colleague, the Treasury Board President, and tell him
that employees of local port authorities, employees of the St.
Lawrence seaway, contrary to what was done in the case of the
airports and Nav Canada, would continue to belong to a crown
corporation. With this in mind, I asked the Minister of Transport
to really reaffirm his role as leader and say that Treasury Board
officials would not be the ones to decide that these employees
would be out of the pension plan.
Contrary to what my Reform colleague has just said, it is
clear in the amendment in Motion No. 18 moved by the Bloc
Quebecois, and it is worth taking the trouble to read, that:
—any person who, at the time of the coming into force of
those sections or subsection was employed by one of those
bodies and remains employed, may, if that person was a
contributor under the Public Service Superannuation Act, elect
to remain subject to the terms of the Public Service
Superannuation Act—
Our amendment makes this an obligation and allows employees to
continue to belong to the government pension plan. The same
reasoning as that used in the case of the airports and Nav Canada
cannot be applied.
I respectfully submit that, when the minister tells us that
employees will continue to be covered by a comparable pension plan,
it is true that they will continue to be covered, but employees of
these local port authorities are losing an important bargaining
tool. Allow me to explain.
If a port's board of directors has a salary mass of $500,000
to divide among employees in the next collective agreement, the pie
can only be cut into so many pieces.
If, at the bargaining table, the port's finance director says that,
under the legislation, this amendment, the government has obliged
him to maintain a comparable pension plan.
I am not an actuary, but
after 18 years in labour relations, I am well aware that
maintaining a comparable pension plan for a group of 50 employees,
such as in the port of Grande-Anse, in the Saguenay, or in the port
of Quebec City, involves a different actuarial cost than allowing
them to continue to belong to the government pension plan. The
finance director for the port of Quebec City is therefore going to
tell employees that he has $500,000 for improving working
conditions in that particular year.
If I maintain your pension plan, because you are just a small group, it
will cost $400,000. There will only be $100,000 left to increase death
benefits, annual leave and salaries”.
1735
This is why, if our amendment to Motion No. 18 is not accepted, I
predict that workers in Canadian ports will lose their negotiating power
and the possibility to improve, in a dignified manner, through
negotiations, their working conditions. As for the comparable pension
plan, the cost involved in the case of a small group of employees will
not be the same as would otherwise be the case.
So, Motion No. 19 moved by the government does not satisfy us. It
is not because we oppose maintaining the right of workers, but because
we feel our Motion No. 18 would have been absolutely fair by providing
a fair chance to negotiations and to employees to improve their
conditions of employment, instead of being part of a comparable pension
plan.
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, I rise on the last group of motions. I am little
troubled. Perhaps I misunderstood. At committee several of us
proposed amendments on the superannuation transfer between the
harbour commissions to private corporations or to harbour
authorities, that the superannuation benefits would be extended
to all those employees of harbour commissions and ports that had
them, that they would be supplied even on a temporary basis until
such time as appropriate alternatives could be found.
Several members made amendments which would perform that and I
thought we had been assured by the parliamentary secretary that
they would be submitting an amendment that would address that need to
make sure all employees had some continuation of
superannuation benefits.
According to this, it applies only to Canada Port Authority
employees, Motion No. 19.
Motion No. 18 is the same kind of motion, addressing the same
issue. We prefer Motion No. 19. However, we understood that it
would apply to all employees, not just to Canada Port Authority
employees. I may have misunderstood that in committee but we did
vote based on the assurances of the parliamentary secretary that
there would be an alternative to the superannuation amendments
that several of us put in.
Motion No. 20 is nice and simple and we agree that all fines
recovered under this part should be paid over to the receiver
general and form part of the consolidated revenue fund.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, in
discussion of the marine act at the standing committee, it was
acknowledged that there had been lengthy discussions in the
previous Parliament and it was also understood that the affected
groups were, overall, satisfied with the changes that had been
made to the marine act.
In recognition of that and of their request that we not rehash
the whole process and that we try to move the bill along, I
believe the standing committee worked in that effort. The major
area that came up for discussion, as we are being made aware, was
to ensure that employees of Canada Ports continued with some kind
of superannuation or pension benefits comparable to what they
had.
I had a real treat of being in Churchill the day after the
signing took place and the port was turned over to another
company. I realized that Canada Ports really had not given two
cents worth of its time with regard to its employees. There had
been little or no discussion with the employees. The employees
were given forms with which they were basically signing away
their rights to any file or complaints they had under the human
rights code. It was actually very disgraceful to see that
approach taken with the employees.
What also happened with those employees is there was not a
comparable plan in place.
1740
I have a letter that was given to one of those employees with
regard to the three months pay for the perceived difference in
superannuation and RRSPs. The letter states that the money
that person would have received, in that perceived difference,
the money that person would get, would be put toward that person's
earnings. Therefore, that person would be denied a length of
time in which to claim unemployment. That person could not even
take that money and invest it in something that would be there
for retirement. It then went toward insurable earnings. So that
person did not have even that difference of money that was
recognized. That person would not even be allowed to use it for
retirement.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Pursuant to the special motion of the
government whip which was adopted unanimously at the beginning of
this debate, all questions should be deemed put no later than
5.30 p.m. today.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must advise the
hon. member that there was unanimous consent to go on with the
debate with five minutes for each party represented. The hon.
member for Churchill is the last member to speak.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, further to discussion
with Canada Ports employees, all the opposition parties and even
some Liberal members recognized the real need to ensure employee
benefits and pensions were continued. We are going through a
major change here. I hope this is not something that will happen
every day or every decade where employees who work for the
Government of Canada are being told their jobs will no longer be
there, that they are due to retire in five years and will not
have the income or pension benefits they have planned for
retirement.
It was hoped that the government would come up with a clause
that would recognize this is a major change and that employees
would be given the opportunity to continue with those same
benefits. That is not to say that new employees may have had
something different. Those employees who had planned their
retirement based on that plan should have had the opportunity to
continue.
This situation will not affect only Canada Ports. It is coming
up in Atomic Energy Canada as those types of corporations are
turned over. The issue will keep coming back. I suggest that we
all look at the possibility of ensuring there is something for
those employees so they are not five years to retirement without
the funds they thought were available.
I will be supporting Motion No. 18 because I believe it is more
encompassing. I put that motion forward at committee and I thank
the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans resubmitting
it.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I understand that the unanimous consent that was arrived at 10
minutes ago allowed for each party to have five minutes to speak.
I also understand that the hon. member for the Reform Party spoke
for just three minutes and we would not object to another two
minutes being allowed for another member in that party. We have
no objection.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Souris—Moose Mountain.
1745
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I will just sum up and get some clarification and
hopefully some clarification for anyone who may be reading the
results of this debate.
The hon. minister mentioned that in this tranferring from the
one authority or one paycheque to another that these people would
be no worse off. Those were the terms that he used. May I
present this to the hon. minister. If someone is being
transferred to the new authority and they do so with 20 years
experience, will that 20 years experience count with the new
authority so that if the pension age is with 30 years of service,
that would be the same number of years which qualified that
individual for full pension?
That has not been made clear and I think that should be made
clear because that is valuable information for the people who are
waiting for the new port authorities to be established.
The second thing is in Motion No. 19, which is a motion which
was raised by the government—and I will be very quick—there is
a statement there that says that this excludes the port
authorities, but this is another issue and I am wondering how the
government is going to deal with that other issue.
Those are my two points.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order adopted
earlier today, all the questions on the motions at report stage are
deemed to have been put and a recorded division is deemed to have been
demanded. Therefore, the recorded divisions stand deferred until
Thursday, December 4, 1997, at the end of government orders.
(Recorded divisions deemed demanded and deferred)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5:46 p.m., the House
will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
USER FEE ACT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-205, an act to provide for parliamentary scrutiny and approval
of user fees set by federal authority and to require public
disclosure of the amount collected as user fees, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to finally be able to
stand and speak in favour of this bill that I have introduced,
Bill C-205, the user fee act.
I will start by quoting from the auditor general's report from
1993. He said:
We are concerned that Parliament cannot readily scrutinize the
user fees established by contracts and other non-regulatory
means. There does not exist a government-wide summary of the
fees being charged, the revenues raised and the authorities under
which they are established.
He went on to say:
We have recommended that the Treasury Board review and report to
Parliament on the adequacy of the current legislative and
administrative framework for establishing user fees, and provide
Parliament with government-wide summary information on fees being
charged.
This is an important issue to many Canadians around the country.
In 1996 user fees raised about $3.8 billion for the government
coffers without absolutely any parliamentary scrutiny. We
believe that that is taxation without representation. Pretty
clearly, others feel the same way.
I sit on the finance committee and I can tell you we had a
number of representations from different groups, a lot of
agricultural-type groups who came before us to complain
specifically about how easy it is for the government and the
bureaucracy to start to raise user fees, again without really
very much scrutiny, with very little regard for the impact it is
having on the various sectors of the economy.
1750
If you look back over the history of this issue, one of the
things you come to suspect very quickly is that the government is
really using user fees to simply tax people more. It is a way
for the government to come up with more revenue and not
necessarily just for cost recovery.
It is interesting that in the February 1995 federal budget the
finance minister sent bureaucrats in search of $600 million in
new revenue in a program he called cost recovery. This should
cause us to be pretty suspicious. The government was in a
terrible pinch in 1995. The finance minister ordered his
bureaucrats to collect $600 million from the hides of people who
were doing business with the government. That is being done
through user fees.
The intended purpose of this bill is to fulfil concerns raised
by the auditor general in his 1993 report. Essentially it would
require scrutiny by the appropriate standing committee of the
House of Commons before any user fee is set or increased. The
regulating authority, that being an agency or department, would
be required to submit a proposal to the committee for review
before any user fee is established or increased.
Madam Speaker, I might ask that you to give me a signal when I
have used up about eight minutes of time. Then I will wrap up
fairly quickly thereafter to allow my colleague to say a few
words.
We believe beyond the issue of accountability, which is
obviously an important issue, taxation without representation is
pretty close to the wallets and the hearts of a lot of people as
an issue they are concerned about. Apart from that is the issue
of fairness.
It is difficult to judge whether or not the government is
allowing user fees to pad shrinking budgets and appropriations. I
can tell you that people are very concerned about it. I want to
illustrate what I mean by reading from a brief which was
presented to the finance committee a month or two ago. It comes
from the Crop Protection Institute. It says:
Federal departments have very little acumen for accountability
and management of cost recovery initiatives, as evidenced by
experience with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA),
whose $12 million cost recovery target is realizing a $4.5
million shortfall, as predicted by industry, while the agency's
performance and client orientation remain poor.
The cumulative impact of multiple cost recoveries within the
Agri-Food value chain (i.e. pesticide registration, food
inspection, veterinary drug registration, navigation system usage
etc.) stifles this sector's potential to consistently deliver a
trade surplus. The business impact test, while very useful, does
not measure the effect of multiple cost recoveries within the
interrelationships of a value chain.
While the government has increasingly chosen to have mandatory
services paid for through user fees, instead of from consolidated
revenues, this switch has not been accompanied by lower tax
rates. Thus, businesses subject to user fees have actually had
their cost of doing business increased by the government,
impacting negatively on their ability to compete globally.
It is pretty obvious when there is a power that is granted to
the bureaucracy to go ahead and start to raise user fees, but on
the other hand there is no check on that power, no real
parliamentary scrutiny. It allows the government to do things
that are quite damaging to business. We are very concerned about
that. We have seen this continue for some time despite the
warnings of the auditor general. Although the government has
done some things, it simply has not gone far enough to deal with
the problems that industry has pointed to.
Some would argue, as the gentlemen from the Crop Protection
Institution does, that user fees put us at a competitive
disadvantage. I can tell you this from personal experience,
Madam Speaker. There is a meat packing plant, IBP Lakeside, in
my home town of Brooks, Alberta. It is having a terrible time
contending with large increases in user fees which the government
has slapped on them, while trying to remain competitive in what
is a global marketplace.
1755
They have to compete with the Americans and others around the
world. These user fees make it extraordinarily difficult for
them to do this.
It is interesting to note that if the user fees that are paid
are combined at all three levels of government, it amounts to
about $23 billion a year in this country, more than Canadians pay
toward the hated GST.
I want to conclude by simply pointing out that there really is a
trend for the government to use user fees to raise new revenue. I
point to the new immigration head tax, $975. There is a passport
fee that was increased from $35 to $60, beginning in 1997.
This is interesting. Fisheries Canada started collecting $15
million in recreational boat licences. In other words, people
who did not used to have to worry about that are now going to be
paying I think $15 a boat so that this money can go back into the
department, ostensibly for them to increase their surveillance
and that sort of thing.
Suffice it to say, without checks, without the ability of
Parliament, in this case through a committee to go ahead and look
at these sorts of things, it really does amount to taxation
without representation. It is $3.8 billion a year.
I urge my colleagues around the House to seriously consider the
objections that are being raised by the business community and by
regular people, people who use parks, people who go fishing,
about the unbridled use of user fees as a way for the government
to increase its revenues.
I would encourage them to consider this and work with me to
encourage the people at public accounts to seriously consider
this issue and perhaps actually implement at least part of what
we are suggesting.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to speak with regard to Bill C-205, presented by the
hon. member for Medicine Hat. The member is known for his
concern for the well-being of the nation's finances. Let us
therefore scrutinize the bill in light of our shared concerns for
the proper fiscal management of Canada's public finances in a
cost effective delivery of services to Canadians.
Bill C-205 would demand separate parliamentary authorization for
the establishment or increase of individual user fees. It would
also require that the amount collected by the government as user
fees be shown separately in the public accounts. In short, all
user fees that are to be introduced, increased, widened in
application must be submitted to the House of Commons and have
the approval of the House before coming into effect.
This is not all. Before the House passes a resolution
authorizing these new increases or widened fees, a committee of
the House must have 150 days to review the proposal.
This bill, while attempting to disclose, is itself enmeshed in
ambiguities, difficulties and misconceptions. The bill as
currently drafted would require that a considerable amount of
amendments be made to clarify its application.
For example, the bill's inclusion of departments as fee setting
authorities but with the exclusion of individual ministers does
not accord with the existing legal authorities for fee setting.
Also, the bill's inclusion of crown corporations as fee setting
authorities is perhaps much broader than the intent the member
for Medicine Hat would like.
First, in the case of crown corporations producing goods and
services under commercial and competitive conditions,
parliamentary authorization for every price, fee or charge would
make reaction to market conditions impossible. It would also be
incompatible with the confidentiality a competitive firm needs to
maintain an effective presence in the marketplace.
1800
Bill C-205 will seriously encumber crown corporations that
compete with private interests. Crown corporations would
effectively be paralyzed vis-à-vis the private sector.
Let us consider what effects the bill would have on existing
user programs within departments and agencies. There are 300
separate categories of fees listed for external user charges in a
report prepared by the Treasury Board secretariat. These fees
range in scale from charges for firewood at Parks Canada
campgrounds to drug certification fees. There may be thousands
of changes to fees implemented across government in any one year.
Bill C-205 requires that a separate parliamentary authorization
for each one of them would place a large administrative and
processing burden on departments, agencies and parliament itself.
Delays would result from the provision that a committee would
have up to 150 days to consider each fee proposal, subsequent to
which the House would have to act before the fee could take
effect. This would make the implementation of user programs
virtually impossible.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat has taken out his trowel and is
prepared to layer curious procedural mortar on the process of
cost recovery through user fees. Is the member's bill consistent
with cost effective delivery of public services? Does it not
undermine the very ideas of a fee for services and a move toward
cost recovery?
The user fee concept is not new. Canadians have paid passport
fees since the 1800s. The use of user fees to finance the
delivery of public sector goods and services is increasing in
Canada as it is in other OECD countries. It operates on the
principle that those who enjoy, profit or benefit from government
services, to the exclusion of the public at large, should be the
ones who pay the cost of providing them.
This promotes fairness in the use of tax dollars and discipline
in the consumption of services. It also gives users a direct say
in the service and how it is delivered. It is cost effective,
administratively sound and a fair way to deliver government
services.
We are interested in prudent management and the cost effective
delivery of goods and services to Canadians. When we came into
office in 1993 not only did we face a large $42.5 billion
deficit, high interest rates, increased taxes and record high
unemployment. We were also looking at record levels of program
spending.
In 1992-93 we were spending $122.6 billion in program spending.
Thanks to the program review and the commitment of ministers,
program spending will fall to $103.5 billion in 1998-99. This
will represent only 11.9% of our gross domestic product, the
lowest ratio since 1949-50.
We have succeeded in bringing our program spending under
control. The deficit at $42.5 billion in 1993 will be eliminated
by 1998-99. We are now debating over what to do with the fiscal
dividend we have earned through proper fiscal management, a
debate that would have been ridiculous, indeed inapplicable,
under the previous government.
The government has shown restraint and discipline while never
forgetting the most needy and vulnerable in society. We have
managed our affairs effectively while maintaining quality service
to Canadians.
1805
Bill C-205 would not contribute to that success. It would
indeed threaten it. After almost a decade of mistrust during the
previous government, Canadians have a new and better relationship
with their federal public institutions. Our public service is
working with and for Canadians for a stronger, more prosperous,
more dynamic and more secure Canada.
Canadians want effective public institutions and departments
that will provide good value for their dollars. We have worked
through program review to make programs and agencies responsible
for the needs of Canadians. Bill C-205 is blind to the progress
we have made so far.
A number of departments, including Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada, Industry Canada and Environment Canada, has been
contacted to get their reaction to the bill. All indicated that
it would do significant harm to their ability to implement
changes to their programs as scheduled under program review,
leading to significant delays and compliance needs.
Under Bill C-206 fee setting would become an adversarial
political process, with the House committees becoming a target
for intensive lobbying from various interest groups.
I conclude by saying that I do not oppose the intent behind the
hon. member's bill. I agree, for example, that public accounts
should include a better breakdown of tax revenue, but the
member's bill is an excessive tool to bring it about.
The intentions of Bill C-205 are unworkable. The basic
principles of the bill are incompatible with the effective
delivery of programs in departments, agencies and crown
corporations which provide goods and services to Canadians on a
full or partial cost recovery basis.
I cannot therefore support the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is
surprising to hear what our colleague opposite had to say. Dealing with
transparency, with how our money is spent, is always complicated; it is
always a long process. But when the process is to tax people, when the
process is to introduce hidden taxes, the government is quick to act.
We have before us today in the House of Commons Bill C-205
introduced by the member for Medicine Hat. In this bill, the Reform
member states that this law would provide for parliamentary scrutiny and
approval of user fees set by a federal authority and require public
disclosure of the amount collected as user fees.
The Bloc Quebecois, a party that promotes transparency, is also
willing to promote this bill. This initiative by my Reform colleague is
in keeping with a recommendation made by the auditor general in his 1993
report, and I would like to quote him. My colleague mentioned this
earlier, but I would like to repeat it because sometimes the members
opposite have difficulty understanding the facts.
Here is what the auditor general said “We are concerned that it is
not easy for Parliament to scrutinize closely user fees as determined by
the market and other non-regulatory instruments. There is no
government-wide summary of fees charged, of revenues collected and of
the authorities under which these fees are set.”
This Reform bill addresses this legitimate concern by the auditor
general.
These user fees are a type of hidden tax that the Minister of Finance
approves. Federal agencies are charging fees in an attempt to overcome
the cuts that the Liberal government imposed on them.
In fact, these federal agencies implemented these service charges
when the Minister of Finance authorized them to do so in 1995. The
minister stated at that time that it was appropriate to charge such new
fees in order to finance part of the programs and services provided by
the federal government.
Who is paying for this new approach? The taxpayer.
I would like to give you several examples of increases to service
charges made by agencies under federal authority: a head tax of $975 for
each new immigrant coming to Canada; administration fees for a passport
increased from $35 to $60.
Another example affects directly families and people who love the
outdoors: in 1995-1996, $35 million were collected in entrance fees paid
by users of our lovely national camping sites, and these fees almost
doubled in the year 1996-1997, totalling over $61 million. Today,
national camping facilities cost more than private camping facilities.
1810
How can these hidden taxes imposed with the finance minister's
blessing be justified when the people of Quebec and Canada are
overburdened with taxes as it is? Bill C-205 comes at the right moment
to unmask the Liberals' game. Where is this money going? The Minister of
Finance did not say anything about that either. Whenever this government
has to account to the people, it shirks its responsibility. There is a
long list of examples.
One issue of particular concern to Quebeckers is that of
harmonising the GST, which costs our taxpayers $2 billion. In spite of
repeated requests on our part, the Minister of Finance still will not
agree to disclose his real motives for denying this legitimate request.
The Minister of Finance repeatedly said that his studies and
analyses showed that Quebec was not entitled to this money. In a
last-ditch effort to resolve this issue, the leader of our party
made a fair and equitable proposal to the two parties involved in
this controversy over numbers. The Bloc leader asked that a
three-member expert panel look into this issue. The federal
government will not agree to this totally democratic and
legitimate approach. What is it trying to hide from the public?
The EI fund, with surpluses expected to exceed $15 billion, is
another issue. In the report he tabled in October, the auditor general
mentioned that the finance minister should administer the EI fund in a
more transparent fashion.
The minister's financial statements should show, under a separate
account, the amounts paid in and out of the EI fund.
This too would help give credibility to this government. Yet, the
finance minister still denies this request. Why? He is afraid of the
public finding out how he is playing with the EI fund surpluses.
Who are the losers in this economic debate? The workers, who are
heavily penalized by this Liberal government.
With this bill, democracy could make strides. The issue of
transparency is front and centre, and that is the first step in stopping
this marketing operation the Liberal government launched in this House
with the Speech from the Throne.
It should be pointed out to the hon. members of this House that, in 1996
alone, these new user fees generated $3.8 billion in revenue for the
federal government, without any form of review being conducted.
The finance minister's game is obvious. This is another source of
revenue that looks like a roundabout way of collecting more taxes from
the taxpayers. The time has come to put a stop to these hidden taxes.
The time has come for the public to be made aware of the use made of
this money by the government.
The Bloc Quebecois fully supports the principle of Bill C-205,
allowing members of Parliament to subject to scrutiny the source of
revenue from user fees.
For the reasons stated the bill, namely transparency,
responsibility and representation, our party is in favour of Bill
C-205.
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, if we
were discussing the issue of user fees I am quite sure it would
be a different debate, but as we are discussing a private
member's bill to ensure parliamentary scrutiny of user fees I
want to rise in support of the bill.
The user fee act will require scrutiny by the appropriate
standing committee of the House of Commons before any user fee
may be set or increased. The regulating authority must submit a
proposal to the committee before any fee is established or
increased.
The report of the committee is subject to the concurrence of the
House. If the committee does not report within 150 days, the
House may pass a resolution approving, denying or amending the
proposed fee or change. The regulating authority is bound by the
decision of the House.
The enactment also requires public accounts and other government
reports on revenue that identify sources of revenue to identify
the amount of revenue from user fees.
The legislation of my colleague from Medicine Hat is designed as
a response to the auditor general's comments that parliament
needs to scrutinize user fees. There does not exist a
government-wide summary of the fees being charged, the revenues
raised and the authorities under which they were established.
There is a lack of scrutiny.
User fees are more and more present for services which the
government provides. Not only are they becoming more abundant
but they are becoming higher.
It is easy to show a surplus when services are cut. It is easy
to show a surplus when we operate government as pay for service.
The government has cut and slashed so much the budgets of
departments that they now turn to user fees to make up for the
loss. In 1996 the federal bureaucrats picked up $3.8 billion in
user fees for government services, 7% more than in 1995.
1815
User fees have been able to explode without scrutiny. People
are affected by these user fees that are imposed on them. They
are hitting us from every angle. Ottawa has cut its deficit on
the backs of the provinces and the provinces are doing the same
on the backs of municipalities, hospitals and school boards. With
no government to download onto and under pressure from citizens
to hold the line on taxes, local politicians have increasingly
turned to user fees. Local governments now raise more than $9
billion a year in user fees and hospitals another $3 billion,
double what they were pulling in a decade ago.
As a trustee with my school district, I was aware over the years
that students had to buy some supplies, wood for carpentry and
material for sewing, gym shorts, a calculator, a French verb
book. As the years went by the list got longer and longer.
Finally there was a public outcry because there were just so many
items the students had to purchase on their own. Such is the case
with the Government of Canada.
This legislation would be a start. Members in this Parliament
would have a chance to represent their constituents' concerns
over the government's user fees. They would have a chance to have
public debate on user fee increases. We would have a chance to
decide if it was fair for Canadians to pay for the government's
cuts to departmental budgets. This is why I will be supporting
this bill.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-205 presented by the member for
Medicine Hat.
I have heard people say that the member for Medicine Hat should
be knighted for his service to the people of Canada performed
through this bill. There are others who say he should be
ignited. I do not know which it should be but I do appreciate
that he has brought this bill forward. It is a very serious
topic.
In the time that I have to speak on this bill, I will deal with
the user fees and the problems they cause to farmers and those in
the agricultural industry. I will focus on that area, although
many of my comments could be applied to any other business or
industry.
I will begin by referring to the 1993 auditor general's report,
which the hon. member for Medicine Hat referred to briefly. It
should have been a starting point for the government as it delved
into the user fee fiasco it is in now. Second, I will deal with
the principles that should guide changes to user fees. Third, I
am going to talk about the general concerns that farmers and
agribusiness have expressed regarding user fees. And if I have
time, I will refer to what particular farm organizations and
agriculture processors have said about what user fees are doing
to them.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat explained his bill and the
impact it would have on the whole issue of user fees. User fees
as they have been used by the federal government and other levels
of government have become a new way of taxing people. We had
something like 36 tax increases by the government in the last
Parliament plus the budget promise for a 73% increase in the
Canada pension plan premium. And already in this Parliament the
same government has made tax increases and sometime this week or
next, because closure has been invoked, we will be debating and
passing Bill C-2, the increase in Canada pension plan premiums of
73%.
Farmers who manage their businesses are faced with these very
real tax increases and the increase in Canada pension plan
premiums. Since most farmers own their own businesses and are
self-employed, they would face an increase over five years
amounting to $3,200 a year. They have that increase as well as
the whole barrage of user fees that affect them both directly and
indirectly.
I will talk about some of these fees.
1820
Starting with the auditor general's report, the hon. member for
Medicine Hat talked a bit about the report. In the 1993 report
the auditor general called for the scrutiny of Parliament on user
fees. That is exactly what the hon. member for Medicine Hat is
calling for in his private member's bill.
The auditor general stated: “We are concerned that Parliament
cannot readily scrutinize the user fees established by contracts
and other non-regulatory means”. The auditor general said that
he was concerned Parliament generally does not have a chance to
scrutinize new fees. He went on to say that Parliament really
cannot scrutinize user fees established by contracts and other
non-regulatory means: “There does not exist a government wide
summary of fees being charged and revenues raised by the
authorities under which they are established”.
He also said that the use of contracts on a broad scale to
establish fees needs to include careful consideration of such
issues as: how they would affect the parties and that parties be
consulted; how Parliament would be given the opportunity to
review fees established by contracts; and how users would be
assured they are being charged the same price for identical
services being used.
The auditor general said that Parliament should scrutinize the
fees. He went on to explain that there are many increases in
user fees that really are not defined as such. Therefore they
are not even guided by the rules as they exist to guide the
establishment and the use of user fees, including contracts. The
auditor general specifically picked on contracts because we are
talking about a sizeable number of dollars being put in place
without being passed through Parliament, without the scrutiny of
something like a parliamentary committee. The auditor general was
not pleased with what had happened to that point and nothing has
been done since to improve the situation.
I will talk about what the principles to guide user fees should
be. Much of my material comes from what the Canadian Dehydrators
Association says the principles for the implementation of user
fees should be.
First, the fee must be based on the actual cost of providing the
service. They are not necessarily set that way now. Some fees
are much higher than the cost of the service being provided.
Second, these services must be provided cost effectively. That
is a key point Reform has focused on over the past few years we
have been here. We said that in many cases we believe the
services are not being provided in a cost effective way and we
have to make sure that they are.
Third, administrative costs must be low and the documentation
requirements must be there in the operation of the business.
Fourth, there must be no cross-subsidization of services across
commodities or regions. This is an important point. We have
seen too much of this kind of thing in the past. We have seen
too many cases where the costs in one area are being borne for
costs that actually should be borne by another sector, another
industry or another part of the country. Cross-subsidization
should not be occurring.
Fifth, wherever possible the fees should be directly applied to
prevent fee inflation to indirect application through a service
provider.
Sixth, there must be a system in place for tracking the overall
incidence of fees and its effect on industry with a process for
consultation.
Some general concerns have been expressed by farmers and others
in the agriculture industry.
There are seven or eight of them. I do not know if I will get
through them all, but I will see how I do. Some of these concerns
have been expressed to me by many different groups. I could go
through the list which includes the Ontario Corn Producers and
the Canadian Meat Council. Many concerns are expressed about the
Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Marine Services Act.
1825
Someone who is not familiar with what goes on in agriculture
might ask how on earth can the fees charged under the Marine
Services Act affect farmers. Farmers move products and the
agriculture industry moves products through ports and the fees
are borne by farmers.
There is the Crop Protection Institute. There are letters from
many individuals and representatives of farm groups, of industry
groups, and so on. They expressed the common concerns that I
would like to put on record here, but I understand from your
signal I will not be allowed to, Madam Speaker.
One concern I do want to express is that we cannot look at user
fees in isolation. We have to look at them and their cumulative
effect on industry. We can look at a whole series of user fees
that do impact on any industry in the agricultural sector. There
is no agency in government that looks at these total accumulation
of fees and the impact on the industry. There is no government
agency that looks at the comparison of fees in the other
countries Canada competes with.
These are my concerns. I see that my time is up. I look
forward to the hon. member for Medicine Hat doing his wrap up on
the bill. I am sure he will comment on some points made by the
members across the floor.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I read Bill C-205 with
care and tried to see how it would improve things at the moment for
user fees. I must say I am still looking.
What is the intent of this bill? That was my question. All
user fees—new, increased or expanded—have to be submitted to
the House of Commons.
The definition of user fees is too broad. It applies to both
the fees established by the governor in council and to all federal
agencies, including crown corporations, whether we are talking
about user fees for a good, a service, authorization, a permit or
a license authorized by Parliament.
To have force of law, user fees must be approved by the House
of Commons. Before the House approves them, a committee of the
House has 150 days to study the proposed fees. The amounts of
money generated by user fees should appear separately in public
accounts.
I think this is going too far. In its present form, the bill is,
to say the least, weak in form and content. It requires so much
reworking, so many amendments, in order to clarify its
implementation, that studying it at a later stage in our
parliamentary process becomes unrealistic.
The government has made significant progress where user fees
are concerned, but Bill C-205 contains just what is needed for
chaos and disorder.
Charging user fees is good government. If the intention of
the bill is legitimate, however, the reality remains that it would
impose a huge burden on our parliamentary process on the one hand,
and would make it impossible to operate certain crown corporations
and agencies on the other.
This private member's bill would require separate
authorization by Parliament to set or increase user fees and would
introduce chaos into a system that works well at the present time.
The costs and associated delays associated with this bill
would represent a serious threat to all government programs based
on user fees.
The bill is so vague that it would apply to commercial prices
set by crown corporations, and by so doing would hamper their
operations.
1830
In the case of crown corporations producing commercial goods
and services, requiring the authority of Parliament for each of
these user fees would completely gum up the works.
This bill would also make it impossible to maintain the
confidentiality an organization requires in its dealings with
clients. The result could be major damage to the point of making
it impossible for many crown corporations to operate.
The same might also happen with programs. There are some 300
programs and categories of user fees listed in the Treasury Board
Secretariat's report on user fees and many of these categories
contain a large number of individual fees.
They range from prices for firewood in Parks Canada campgrounds to
fees for certifying drugs. There can be thousands of fee changes
on a government-wide scale every year.
Imagine the administrative burden and the parliamentary
bottleneck created by thousands of requests for changes in user
fees. Imagine the additional workload for departments, government
organizations and crown corporations, as well as for Parliament and
parliamentarians.
Imagine, as well, the delays resulting from a clause in the
bill authorizing the parliamentary committee to consider a proposed
user fee increase for 150 days. And, to top it all off, the House
would have to approve the committee's decision or recommendation.
This would make it virtually impossible to administer user fee programs.
There is also every indication that departments would find it
impossible to conduct the program review in a consistent manner.
Setting user fees would become a complicated exercise within the
political process of parliamentary committees, which would become the
prime target of intensive lobbying on the part of interest groups
affected by user fee proposals.
While we feel it would be impossible to implement the bill, we are
not opposed to some of its underlying elements. We agree that public
accounts should provide more detailed information on revenues other than
taxes.
Unfortunately, the scope of the member's bill is too broad to represent
only a minor change in public accounts.
We also support the idea of parliamentarians monitoring user fees.
The fact is that user fees are mentioned more and more often in the
reports on plans and priorities. Moreover, the legislation affecting the
industry and health departments now provides that all user fees imposed
by a minister must be referred, as part of a permanent process, to a
committee of the House.
For these reasons, and for the reasons mentioned by my colleague,
I cannot support the bill.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
for Medicine Hat wish to conclude for five minutes?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Yes, Madam Speaker. I certainly would
like to wrap up.
I will address some of the issues that my friends across the way
have raised with respect to Bill C-205 and their objections. It
has been suggested that because the bill is broad in scope and
that it would cover all kinds of agencies and crown corporations
that it would make it extraordinarily difficult for the
committees to be able to handle all of these things.
I think hon. members across the way are simply raising bogeymen.
The fact is that 90% of these user fees would probably pass
through largely unopposed and would be run of the mill decisions
essentially rubber stamped. However, there are the 10% that
Canadians have raised concerns about. In fact, hon. members
across the way will remember very well the huge debate that we
had in this country when the government brought in a user fee
which was the immigration head tax. That is something that
deserves parliamentary scrutiny. It is something that we need to
have a discussion about before it is actually implemented.
Sadly, that is the sort of thing that we do not get under the
current government.
1835
In the Liberal's election campaign in 1993, I am sure hon.
members across the way ran around with the red book. One of the
things contained in that red book was how the government was
going to empower committees. This would actually give committees
something meaningful to do. It would actually allow them to give
people some representation effectively when the government is
proposing to tax them.
This would probably draw more attention to committees. There is
no doubt about that. It would in fact attract people to come and
lobby. There is no doubt about that and that is probably good.
There will be people lobbying on both sides. It would allow a
transparent process so that we could actually have the public
allowed to see what is going on with respect to the increases in
user fees.
I want to back that up by pointing out what the auditor general
said in his 1993 report. He said: “Is the establishment of
fees by order less open to abuse? If the regulatory process is
followed there is a degree of transparency in how a price is
established. If fees are established by contracts the process
could be subject unduly to political and administrative
considerations.”
In other words essentially what the auditor general is saying is
that under the current situation where the bureaucracy can
effectively contract with those people who use government
services and set fees arbitrarily, it is open to political and
administrative considerations.
We do not want that type of system in Canada at the end of the
20th century. That is something that belongs in a third world.
That opens ourselves up to corruption and those sorts of
practices. We do not want to have that in our country. That is
why I am arguing strongly so the government can follow through on
its election commitments to open up committees, to make them more
powerful, to do things that are quite meaningful to people. This
would be a wonderful opportunity for the government to do that.
I just want to emphasize again, because this was an objection
raised by both speakers on the Liberal side, that 90% of these
user fees would never run into opposition from people on the
committee. People are not going to argue about the price of
firewood if it looks reasonable. If all of a sudden it jumps by
half or 100%, people may start to object. That is probably good.
We need to have that kind of mechanism in committee. We do not
have it in the House of Commons. We need to have it at least in
committee then ultimately in the House of Commons. Right now
those things are allowed to go on unabated and Canadians are
paying for these things directly from their pockets.
The hon. member across the way sent me a note saying “I thought
the Reform Party supports user fees”. We do not have a problem
with user fees. We agree with user fees. To us it makes sense
that people who use particular services would pay for them and
not the general public. What I would think would happen in a
situation where everything was working correctly, as the users
fees go up the general tax level should go down. That has not
happened. Taxes have gone up too. That makes our businesses
uncompetitive because they pay higher tax rates and they also pay
these user fees.
For all of those reasons and many more I urge my friends across
the way to reconsider their objections and work with me to ensure
that the people at public accounts do actually start to implement
some of the recommendations in Bill C-205.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Since no other members wish to
speak and the motion was not selected as a votable item, the period
allocated for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the item is dropped from the Order Paper.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I
believe that you would find unanimous consent for the following
motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual procedure,
during the present sitting the House may receive a message
concerning a royal assent and attend a royal assent after
proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 have commenced,
provided that, if the House has not attended a royal assent by
the conclusion of the said proceedings, it shall not adjourn, but
the sitting shall be suspended and shall be resumed for the sole
purpose of a royal assent and provided that immediately after a
royal assent or, if the Speaker receives information that no
royal assent is to be granted this day, for the sole purpose of
adjourning to the next sitting day.
A note of explanation. This is to suspend the House until we
receive royal assent on Bill C-24 regarding Canada Post, after
which of course the House will be adjourned.
1840
Meanwhile, the House I believe would also consent to proceeding
with what is normally considered the adjournment debate, although
technically of course we will not be adjourned so that members
can have the benefit of having the adjournment debate now.
I believe you would find unanimous consent for that unusual
practice as well, if the House is willing to consent to that
which I have just stated.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, on
October 7 I questioned the Minister of Health regarding concrete
action the government needs to take to address the dramatic
situation of aboriginal health as highlighted by a recent report
from the auditor general.
Health is a matter of great concern for all Canadians. As Tom
Irons, fourth vice-chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian
Nations, stated: “I firmly believe that no other issue so
fundamentally relates to the survival of our people than
health”.
The 1996 report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
refers to the health status of aboriginal people as both a
tragedy and a crisis. Health Canada statistics illustrate the
extent of this tragedy.
Infant mortality for first nations is 1.7 times higher than the
Canadian average. Life expectancy is seven to eight years lower
on reserves than anywhere else in Canada. Infectious diseases
like tuberculosis are 6.6 times more common among aboriginal
peoples. The suicide rate among young people is up to eight
times higher than the Canadian average.
These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. Health and
social conditions in aboriginal communities are disastrous and
clearly unacceptable under Canadian standards.
The auditor general's report talks of abuses of prescription
drugs having caused high dependency and even death among some
aboriginal people. We may add to this list the ongoing lack of
resources and medical staff in remote communities.
What is our government's response to this crisis? We hear a lot
of words, talk of partnership and new programs, but little
action. If aboriginal health is a matter of concern for this
government, maybe the minister could explain why the federal
government is reducing its budget allocation to health services
on reserves.
The June 1997 expenditure plan from Health Canada shows a
reduction of 2.9% of direct spending on aboriginal health
programs between 1995 and 1996. Is the government hoping to
improve the situation by reducing already scarce resources? As
the auditor general rightly points out, it is necessary to
establish a closer relationship between the government and
aboriginal administrations in order to put forward solutions that
address the specific realities of each community.
Aboriginal peoples have shown great energy and imagination in
tackling health and social problems. Projects linking
traditional healing practices and medical services have often
proven very successful. Collaboration and partnership based on
action between governments and aboriginal peoples is the first
step toward addressing the dramatic situation in many aboriginal
communities.
As the royal commission stated in its final report, this
situation is the result of years of abuses and of paternalistic
attitude that seriously damaged aboriginal self-esteem and sense
of belonging, but transferring programs must not be done in a
dump and run style so often employed by this government. It must
be done in true collaboration with aboriginal communities to
ensure that programs transferred are actually going to improve
the health of aboriginal peoples.
Empowering the people involved is an essential step toward
healing and creating conditions for a better future. I thus
strongly urge the government to act on this and closely examine
the royal commission and the auditor general recommendations
regarding aboriginal health.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to
respond on behalf of the Minister of Health to the member for
Halifax West.
I wish to address the concerns which have been raised in the
House over the findings of the auditor general's report
concerning the delivery of health care services for first
nations.
The auditor general says that some first nations people are
concerned that Health Canada is taking a dump and run attitude in
the transfer of health care programs to first nations.
1845
I assure the House that the transfer initiatives are launched as
a response to communities that are ready to assume greater
responsibility for health care resources.
It is a process that responds to first nations and will occur at
a time and pace of their choosing. There is no pressure on
communities to take up the transfer.
Concerns have also been raised in the House over the auditor
general's findings with regard to prescription drug misuse among
Canadian first nations and the slowness of Health Canada to
respond to this problem, which the auditor general says the
department has known about for 10 years.
Let me assure the hon. member that for the past 10 years Health
Canada has been working to address the problem. The department
has installed a comprehensive claim processing system across the
country which deals with six million drug claims per year. It
ensures that eligible clients receive drug benefits. By the end
of the year the department will have installed a point of sale
system in all pharmacies that will alert pharmacists to real
problems such as harmful drug interaction and patterns that
suggests misuse before the client has been given the drug.
In his report the auditor general agrees that this will address
many of the problems of prescription drug misuse. In addition, a
drug utilization review report has been developed which allows
Health Canada to identify potential abuse situations for
physicians, pharmacists and clients.
This system ensures that those involved can be alerted and
appropriate follow-up action initiated to address situations
where abuse is identified. I assure the member—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Dartmouth.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, today is
International Day of Disabled Persons. I would like to revisit
the issue I brought to the attention of the House on October 28,
on the first anniversary of a federal task force report on
persons with disabilities, and that is the growing desperation of
the disabled.
I will start by setting the stage for the task force. It was
set up after the Minister of Finance eliminated the Canada
Assistance Plan and instituted the CHST, no strings attached
money to the provinces where health care, education and social
services would all be fighting for the same dollars.
The Minister of Human Resources Development stated that he was
planning to end federal responsibilities to the disabled and the
families caring for them.
In the grand scheme of downloading and devolving, people with
disabilities and the families caring for them, my own family
included, were facing an anxious and uncertain future in this new
world order: reduced resources, reduced protection, and reduced
commitment in the areas of health care, education and social
services.
The task force held out a ray of hope for all of us that the
rights of the disabled would finally be dealt with by the federal
government. The task force called for a Canadians with
disabilities act. It recommended earmarked funds in existing
programs, tax reforms and refundable tax credits. It urged the
government to address the extra costs of living with
disabilities.
The task force led people to believe that the very real issues
of training, education and labour, the life issues of the
disabled, would finally be dealt with. One year after it was
tabled and where are we? The Liberals have only implemented 8 of
the 52 recommendations, and I must say they were the easy ones.
Persons with disabilities and their services are under attack
more than ever. The federal government is trying to ram through
changes to the Canada Pension Plan Act, which will have the
impact of cutting $1 billion in spending on CPP disability
pensions by the year 2005. Disabled widows and widowers will
have their combined survivor disability pension benefits reduced.
Disability pensions will be harder to get and worth less.
Now with the CHST and cash strapped provinces having the
discretion to spend money as they want, services to the disabled
are dropping like flies. In the nation's capital there are two
accessible taxis available on 24 hours notice. The para-transit
service has been cut in half, and it was underfunded to begin
with.
1850
How are people supposed to go to work or to the doctor? How are
they to visit their mothers? Attendant care is being slashed.
People have to fight for the right to have a bath once a week. It
is a farce to say that persons with disabilities have the same
rights when supports are being withdrawn for them to participate
at the most basic level.
What about protection under the law? With the sentence handed
down this week on the murder of Tracy Latimer, the disabled
believe they were sent an even stronger message, that their lives
were somehow not worth as much as others. Tracy Latimer was
disabled and she is now no longer with us.
It is time that we all took a very close look at the conditions
facing the disabled in Canada. It is time the federal government
finally acted on the recommendations of its task force.
On behalf of the disabled I urge the government to appoint a
minister responsible for persons with disabilities and to
introduce a persons with disabilities act. It is time to
safeguard the quality of life for our most vulnerable citizens.
Some 4.2 million disabled Canadians and their families are
waiting and hoping that these issues will finally be addressed.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to
speak on the subject of national pharmacare.
I would like to inform the House about the government's plans
with respect to a national pharmacare program. The National
Forum on Health pointed out that Canadians were fortunate to have
a world class health care system. Medicare, as we know it, gives
universal access to medically necessary hospital services without
financial barriers. This system has served us well over the last
number of years both in terms of the health of the population and
the competitiveness of the Canadian economy.
The national forum told us that we should preserve what we have.
It also told us that in order to preserve it we should consider
doing a number of things. One of those things was expanding
medicare to include other medically necessary services such as
home care and drugs.
The federal government intends to pursue the examination of the
future directions recommended by the national health forum to
serve Canadians. As outlined in the speech from the throne on
home care we said that we would take measures to support
Canadians by responding to the expanding needs for home care and
community care. We will develop a national plan, timetable and
fiscal framework for providing Canadians with better access to
medically necessary drugs.
This means the federal government recognizes that our country
would be better served with an ideal pharmacare and drug system.
We can do better with respect to the services provided. We can
do better with respect to the use of prescription drugs,
compliance and prescribing. We can do better with respect to
integrating the health care system and allocating resources among
drug therapy, hospital therapy and medical therapy.
Medically necessary prescription medicines are a vital element
of health care. They are of relative importance compared with
other elements of health care.
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Madam Speaker, I
questioned the Minister of Health on October 1 with regard to the
promise on pharmacare in the Liberal red book.
In the question to the Minister of Health I alluded to the
election campaign and the promise to introduce a pharmacare
program for all Canadians. I proceeded to quote from the red
book two and I will quote now from page 75 of the Liberal
election platform:
We will work with our provincial partners to ensure that all
Canadians have access to medically necessary drugs within the
public health care system. The federal government has a role to
play in bringing together provincial and territorial partners and
a range of other interests to develop a national plan and
timetable for introducing prescription drugs into the medicare
system.
I guess the only response the minister could make was that he
would consult with his provincial counterparts. That is not good
enough. I contend it was an election promise simply for the
purpose of getting elected. The minister and the Liberal
government had no idea of how to implement such a program.
I have lots of evidence to back me up on this, that it was
nothing more than election rhetoric. The cost of doing so is
astronomical, is well beyond the present government's ability to
pay.
1855
Presently in Canada we spend $10.8 billion annually on drugs.
Out of that $10.8 billion about $5 billion is for prescription
drugs. So the question is, how will the government come up with
$5 billion, knowing full well that there are financial restraints
on the government.
It did not stop there. When the present minister was first
appointed to cabinet in his new role as health minister, I guess
he could not resist the idea of going back at it. I quote from
the Ottawa Citizen of June 12 which states: “Canada's new
health minister promised yesterday to preserve medicare and
perhaps even expand it with universal pharmacare and home care
programs”. That was long before he had the opportunity to
realize what he had said and what he would have to do, again
because of the cost.
The Minister of Health has found out and he comes back to it in
every single answer in the House with regard to the pharmacare
program that he has to consult with the provinces. Indeed he
would have to consult with the provinces because there is a
hodge-podge of programs across this country provincially with
regard to pharmacare and none of them are the same. In other
words we have 10 provinces and every one of them has a different
policy with regard to pharmacare. Some provinces have a very
good system of pharmacare for seniors and some provinces do not.
Some provinces have a pharmacare program for people below a
certain level of income.
The point I am making is that the minister and the government
had no idea what they were promising in 1997 with regard to the
pharmacare program.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, medically necessary
prescription medicines are a vital element of Canada's health
care system. They have increased in relative importance compared
to other health care sectors. Look at what we can accomplish
today with drugs that before had to be dealt with through surgery
or worse yet, had no treatment available. I am thinking here of
the advances we have made in substantially reducing the need for
ulcer surgery and the advances we have made in treating mental
illness.
It is time for us to start talking about how we are going to
ensure that Canadians will have access to health care. We are
now just beginning this dialogue.
The federal government does not have a ready made national
pharmacare program cooked up in Ottawa's back rooms. The
Canadian health care system is a partnership and the federal
government will be exploring a national approach to pharmacare in
true collaboration with the provinces and territories. A new
federal-provincial-territorial working group is beginning a
process. Stakeholders must also be involved in the dialogue.
As part of the new health transition fund, $150 million over
three years was announced in the last budget, the Minister of
Health will be co-hosting a national conference on pharmacare
with the Minister of Health for Saskatchewan. This will be an
important step in our discussions on a national approach to
pharmacare.
The development of a national approach to pharmacare will be
collaborative. It will not happen overnight. It will not be
done by the federal government alone. It is must be done—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington.
TRADE
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I was somewhat surprised recently when United States
President Bill Clinton was unsuccessful in getting backing from
Congress to give him a so-called fast track authority to
negotiate expansion of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
I wondered where that left Canada.
1900
[Translation]
The federal government worked tremendously hard to ensure that the
Canadian economy continues to have solid foundations.
[English]
Accordingly, I believe that Canada must be diligent in ensuring
that we follow our own agenda to further trade liberalization in
the Americas. There is tremendous trade potential in this
hemisphere for Canada. It is important that with the global
economy becoming more and more interconnected that we do not
watch from the sidelines.
Rather, we need to pursue with vigour trade agreements and
investment co-operation agreements which will be beneficial to
Canada and to all Canadians.
Will the parliamentary secretary outline precisely what Canada
intends to do to continue to seek trade agreements with countries
in our hemisphere?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, while we are
naturally very disappointed in this recent development, I assure
the House it is not going to slow us down one minute. We
will continue to pursue our trade liberalization agenda in Latin
America with or without a fast track in place in the U.S.
By the year 2000 this area will have a population of nearly 500
million and a gross domestic product of $2 trillion. Canadian
business representatives are bullish on the region.
The achievement of more open markets through the free trade area
of the Americans, as we call it now the FTAA, remains a top
priority. Fast track is not a technical requirement for the
negotiations to begin. It is, however, a signal of U.S.
commitment that many FTAA countries are looking for.
We understand that the U.S. administration intends to resume its
effort to obtain approval for fast track in the new year. We
hope for a successful result in time for the Santiago meeting.
Complementing the FTAA, Canada is also proceeding with our trade
dialogue with the Mercosur group of countries, Argentina, Brazil,
Paraguay and Uruguay. Canada's annual exports to this market are
about $1.5 billion and Canadian investment there has reached $6
billion. We hope to put in place a framework for our trade and
investment relations with Mercosur during the upcoming Team
Canada visit to the region.
In January, as my hon. friend knows, the prime minister will
lead a Team Canada mission to Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and
Chile. These three initiatives are aimed at expanding the links
Canada has already established with key partners in our region.
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order
made earlier, the motion to adjourn the House is deemed withdrawn
and the sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 7.03 p.m.)
2215
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 10.15 p.m.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that a message has been received from the Senate informing this
House that the Senate has passed the following bill: Bill C-24,
an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal
services.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[English]
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as
follows:
Mr. Speaker, The Honourable Deputy to the Governor General
desires the immediate attendance of his honourable House in the
chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the
Senate chamber.
And being returned:
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy
Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the
royal assent to the following bill:
Bill C-24, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation
of postal services—Chapter No. 34.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier this
day, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.)