EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 136
CONTENTS
Friday, October 9, 1998
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1000
| EXTRADITION ACT
|
| Bill C-40. Second reading
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1005
1010
1015
| Mr. Randy White |
1020
1025
1030
1035
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1040
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1045
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1050
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| TRANSPORT
|
| Ms. Albina Guarnieri |
1100
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| THE HOMELESS
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| HOCKEY
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| THUNDER BAY REGIONAL ARTS COUNCIL
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| UNEMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1105
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| MEMBER FOR BOURASSA
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION ACT
|
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1110
| JACOB AND MATHEW BROWN
|
| Mr. Ian Murray |
| INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF POVERTY
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| DAVIE INDUSTRIES
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY GENERAL
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION ACT
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1115
| CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Réginald Bélair |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
1120
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1125
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
1130
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| APEC SUMMIT
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1135
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1140
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| Mr. Bob Wood |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| APEC SUMMIT
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1145
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| AIR ATLANTIC
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| TAXATION
|
| Hon. Sheila Finestone |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| FORESTRY
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1150
| SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1155
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| APEC SUMMIT
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| THE ARCTIC
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1200
| SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| CREE-NASKAPI COMMISSION
|
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
1205
1210
1215
1220
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1225
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1230
| Division on motion deferred
|
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Bill C-235
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Divorce Act
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Indonesia
|
| Mr. Ian Murray |
1235
| Justice
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| EXTRADITION ACT
|
| Bill C-40. Second reading
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1240
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1245
1250
1255
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1300
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Division on motion deferred
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
1305
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Bill C-235. Second reading
|
| Mr. Julian Reed |
1310
1315
| Mr. John Duncan |
1320
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1325
1330
| Ms. Albina Guarnieri |
1335
1340
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1345
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
1350
| Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 136
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, October 9, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1000
[English]
EXTRADITION ACT
The House resumed from October 8 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-40, an act respecting extradition, to amend the
Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and
the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and to amend
and repeal other Acts in consequence, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
began my presentation yesterday and was interrupted, so I am
happy to resume my remarks with respect to the position taken by
the NDP caucus on Bill C-40, the changes to the Extradition Act.
As I pointed out yesterday, the NDP caucus has some reservations
and concerns about Bill C-40, but in general we support the
substance of it. Today I would like to recap some of the
concerns and reservations that the NDP has about the bill.
First, we are not fully comfortable that the changes to the
rules of evidence will be thorough enough to satisfy our justice
critic. Changes as to who may or may not be excluded from
testifying is also of some concern. We are concerned, as well,
about the lack of clarity with respect to extradition to
countries where the death penalty still exists.
1005
This is the primary reservation the NDP caucus has about Bill
C-40. We wish the language was much more clear and thorough in
dealing with this controversial subject. The Canadian people
have stated time and again that they do not believe in the death
penalty. They think it is barbaric. They would like to believe
that we are farther out of the trees than that. It should be
made very, very clear that in the case of extraditing criminals
to a country where the death penalty exists, we do not want to be
a party to that. The NDP caucus is not entirely comfortable with
that wording.
I do not think we even need to review all of the current
examples of people who were convicted of serious crimes and who
were later found to be innocent. If we lived in a country which
had the death penalty, it could be that certain people would have
been executed when, given the fullness of time, they would have
been found to have been innocent.
We are also very critical of places where this has happened. In
the United States a fairly recent example was a man by the name
of Caryl Chessman. He was executed in New York state. Later he
was found to be fully innocent. He went to the electric chair
and he had done absolutely nothing wrong.
Even further along these lines is the fact that duality must be
demonstrated. That is, the crime for which we are extraditing a
person to another country must also be considered a crime here.
That is pretty plain and simple. The crime has to be considered
with the same severity in this country as it is in the country we
are extraditing someone to.
Should not the same apply to forms of punishment? It is not
just the death penalty we are critical of, we are also very
critical of countries that use cruel and inhumane punishment as
part of their sentencing, whether it is torture, mutilation or
anything else.
We do not think that Bill C-40 fully deals with the issue of
extraditing someone to a country that deals with theft by cutting
people's hands off. We would like that to be a lot more firmly
stated.
If the rule is hard and fast about extradition to countries
where the death penalty does exist, we are wondering about
flexibility. If we have a written agreement with the country
with whom we have an extradition treaty that they will not
execute the prisoner, would we then feel comfortable in
extraditing the prisoner to that country?
I have a specific example along those lines in my own riding
where a Canadian citizen has been charged with murder in the
United States. The grand jury in the United States took only
eight minutes to indict this person, the evidence being so
overwhelming that the person was involved.
The argument is that this person should not go to the United
States to stand trial because the state of Florida, where this
incident took place, has the death penalty.
We now have the opportunity with Bill C-40 to look into these
issues so that we will be able to deal with these eventualities
as they come up. I will talk more about that case later if time
permits.
We know that the existing system is flawed. It is cumbersome.
It is time consuming. It is antiquated. It is actually based on
two pieces of legislation from the 1800s: the Fugitive Offenders
Act of 1882 and the Extradition Act of 1877. It is very obvious
that we needed to review how we deal with this kind of thing.
I have a recent letter from the Minister of Justice about the
case I was speaking of. Even the Minister of Justice is clear,
given the tone and content of this letter, that she believes the
process of extradition is slow, tedious and cumbersome. She
points out the two stages of extradition in the current system.
She says that extradition from Canada involves two phases and
this is one of the reasons it gets to be very cumbersome.
In the first phase, which is often referred to as the judicial
phase, an extradition judge must determine on the basis of
affidavit evidence submitted by the requesting state whether the
conduct in the foreign state would constitute an offence in
Canada. There is the duality I was talking about earlier.
We first must satisfy ourselves that the conduct this person
exhibited in the applicant state would be considered a crime of
equal magnitude in this state.
1010
At the judicial phase that has to be satisfied. As well, at
that stage the applicant state has to demonstrate that there is
sufficient evidence. In the case that I was talking about, if
the federal grand jury in the United States indicts, clearly
there is ample evidence at least that the person should come to
justice and stand trial.
The second phase, and this can even be a more lengthy phase of
the extradition process, is the executive phase. That is where
the Minister of Justice gets involved. The Minister of Justice
must decide whether the fugitive should be surrendered to the
requesting state in accordance with the relevant extradition
treaty. This is where it can really bog down and take many
years.
In the closing paragraph of her letter to me the Minister of
Justice tried to give some solace or comfort. She pointed out
that the process has in fact speeded up dramatically due to
changes in 1992 when amendments were made to the extradition
legislation. She claimed that this has shortened the extradition
appeal process.
The changes that went through in 1992 obviously did not do the
job. Six years have gone by since 1992 and the same cases are in
fact being drawn out. It is the “justice delayed is justice
denied” point of view.
I am the first one to admit that extradition law is a very
complex body of law. It involves many players. We are dealing
with international politics, we are dealing with criminal law, we
are dealing with international law, we are dealing with
conflicting laws, the courts, the federal minister of justice and
the governor general. It is a soup of interests that are in
competition with each other. Frankly, it is a field day for the
lawyers who would seek to delay and would use a delay to their
benefit.
The existing extradition laws have been exploited by certain
individuals. We should never condone or put in place any kind of
system where five and seven and even twelve years sometimes is
the norm for bringing a criminal to justice, especially if there
is evidence to indicate that at the very least the person should
stand trial.
Another thing we have to remember, which makes it even more
complex, is that the Immigration Act comes into it and often
people get the two blurred: deportation and extradition. This
again is a further complication at the early end of an
application for extradition. Often it is possible for
deportation to take place if a foreign person within our borders
has done something against our Criminal Code. Obviously that is
a matter where the immigration department deports and we do not
have to extradite.
I will refer to the case that I was talking about earlier. I
have a special interest in extradition which should be of great
concern to all here. This is the case of a major in the Canadian
air force who was posted to Florida. He was murdered. His name
was Major David Threinen and he lived in my riding. David
Threinen's mother was in my office recently asking if there was
something we could do to get involved, which led me to write to
the Minister of Justice.
The fact is that David Threinen's wife, Monique Threinen, and
her boyfriend at the time are the people who it is felt murdered
David Threinen. The boyfriend has now been convicted of first
degree murder and is sitting in a Florida jail. From the very
first moment he has said “It wasn't me who struck the final
blows, it was Monique Threinen”.
The Canadian government intervened on behalf of Monique Threinen
in the state of Florida. A very short time after the death of
her husband the Canadian government, the air force, swept her out
of the country and returned her to Canada with her two children.
They paid her the death benefit, which was something like
$100,000, two years' pay. They began immediately paying her the
widow's pension. She fled the country and the justice system to
hide out in Canada with this windfall of money that the Canadian
government paid her and with the $2,000 or $3,000 a month that
the government is still paying her.
All those involved and all those close to her from her former
husband's mother, her former husband's family, to the father of
her first child from a different marriage have come forward with
statements to the effect that they want Monique Threinen to go
back to the United States to stand trial for this murder. No one
is trying to prejudge the case. They only want the judicial
process to be allowed to follow through its course and for her to
go to court and prove her innocence or guilt.
1015
With the windfall of money she received from the Canadian
government she hired some of the best lawyers in the province of
Manitoba. They are fighting this tooth and nail. They are
fighting it with the comfort and confidence that if they use all
the tricks at their disposal they can drag this out for three,
five or seven years. In the meantime this woman who may be
guilty of murder has the advantage of living in relative comfort
in Winnipeg, raising her children without allowing her other
family members to see them. The grandparents are horrified by
this.
This is a clear example why Bill C-40 is attractive to us. Even
if we do not think it is perfect, even if we think it is a little
flawed, we are eager to see the process speeded up and simplified
to where in a dramatic case like this one no one can hide behind
the complicated and ponderous steps that must be taken in the
current situation of extradition.
We have other examples where it has gone on far too long. I can
point out an extradition hearing where the headline was
“Activists are hot at Allan Rock over murder extradition”. When
that member was the minister of justice an organization was very
upset about the case of another person wanted in the State of
Florida in a drug dealing murder, Edgar Garcia.
He spent five years in the Don Jail as a guest of the crown
fighting his extradition even though there was ample evidence
that he should have gone to stand trial in the other country. The
real obstacle was that Florida had the death penalty. I am the
first one to argue we do not want to send anyone to a country
where he or she might wind up convicted guilty and executed,
because as a Canadian people we have decided over and over again
that is fundamentally wrong.
In this case the State of Florida was willing to say that if
that person came back and stood trial it would not go for the
death penalty. The state prosecutor in the State of Florida
agreed that they would not go after the death penalty. I believe
the minister was comforted by that to the point where they
co-operated and eventually sent Mr. Garcia to Florida where he
pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison.
In summary, I am glad to say that the NDP caucus can and will
support Bill C-40 with the reservations I outlined earlier. The
most glaring concern or reservation is the lack of clarity
involved in the extradition of criminals to countries where the
death penalty exists or where other types of cruel and inhuman
punishment exists.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-40 which
we will be opposing. The reason is, as the member previously
said, that it does not go far enough.
Before I get into some of the details on Bill C-40 I want to
talk a bit about my concerns about the government and its
legislation dealing with the criminal justice system in itself,
which encompasses Bill C-40.
I was dismayed to learn in my riding that there was another
attempt to rob the store of a very good friend of mine, Brian Lee
who owns Lee's Fine Jewellery. This time it worked.
Bandits came into his very fine jewellery store, stuck a gun in
the face of one of his employees and walked off with about
$100,000 worth of jewellery. To somebody like Brian that is not
only devastating but its hurts the store's income. It hurts the
confidence of the people in our community.
1020
When I stand here to express my dismay about situations like
this one, I go back once again to legislation brought up in the
House pertaining to criminal justice. One of them was the gun
law. We supposedly have a gun law to do deal with the crime
problem. Since the government has brought in the gun law, for
instance, at least five people have been murdered by guns in my
riding. Brian's store was held up by someone with a gun in hand.
For five years I have stood in the House time after time to talk
about criminal justice matters. Time after time the same things
recur and recur again.
Here we are on Bill C-40 dealing with extradition and I want to
talk a bit about some of the comments in the press release put
out by the government in this regard. It says fighting global
crime is high on Canada's agenda and Canada needs modern
legislation to succeed. I could not agree more with that
statement. However, when we look at the legislation tabled in
the House we wonder how it fits with the PR exercise the
government goes through after it tables something in the House.
In another press release the government said that Canadians have
expressed concerns about Canada's extradition laws; they want to
prevent their country from becoming a safe haven for fugitives.
Yes, we do. I am not a lawyer but I have fought enough criminal
refugee and immigration cases in the last five years, in fact
more than anybody in the House. These comments do not fit.
The fact of the matter is that this is a safe haven. It has
been a safe haven internationally for criminals. It will
continue to be a safe haven internationally for criminals. It is
not just extradition as the NDP member previously said. It has
to do with deportation although there are differences.
The previous member who spoke about deportation indicated that
it was a little easier to deport than it was to extradite. I
assure the House that is not the case. I have been there and I
have been through those battles.
In my riding I have been in and out of refugee hearings and
deportation hearings so often that I just shake my head when I go
in because I know what I am going to be dealing with. Now I have
managed to have four or five people deported from the country. It
is a monumental exercise. I do not think the government
appreciates what we are dealing with in criminal matters.
Boujam Aai Inthavong, an individual in my riding, helped murder a
young man in my community who was 17 years old. He beat him with
a bat in front of witnesses. The guy with Inthavong shot him in
front of approximately 100 people. Inthavong ended up in prison
for three years. While in prison he applied for refugee status
and got it inside of 50 minutes. It took me and people in my
community a year and half to try to get it overturned. We had to
get a ministerial permit. We had to get the minister to declare
him a danger to the public. We forced that on him. We went
through appeal after appeal after appeal, fight after fight after
fight.
1025
We had to open up diplomatic relations with Laos because nobody
had ever deported somebody from this country to Laos. After all
that was done, almost two years later he was finally deported.
The costs involved in that were through legal aid paid for by
taxpayers. At one point he had two lawyers fighting me, not a
lawyer but just an average citizen, all at public cost.
The government has the unmitigated gall to issue press releases
like this one stating that it wants to prevent our country from
becoming a safe haven for fugitives. I have news for the
government. This country is a safe haven for fugitives and it is
this government's fault.
There is little point in trying to impress people by mediocre
changes in legislation and then hitting the streets with news
releases. It does not wash where the problems are, which is in
the communities.
Jose Mendoza, a young man from El Salvador, came to my
community. This is not an extradition case but I am trying to
explain that extradition and deportation are really quite similar
and the problems are the same. Jose could have been extradited
because in one of his hearings he said he was wanted in El
Salvador. He used that excuse. He had 12 criminal convictions
as a young man between the ages of 17 and 22, including what they
call today sexual assault but I call rape.
Then, after all of that, he was back out on the streets at age
22 and raped Tasha, a girl in my community. The battle started
for Jose. I wanted him out of the country. They agreed and Jose
Mendoza agreed. His legal aid lawyer said “If you stay the
charges Jose will accept deportation”. Everything is a-okay.
Tasha said that at least we were rid of him and he would not
remain in Canada.
We shipped him out escorted to El Salvador where he hitch-hiked
through Guatemala, Mexico, the United States and showed up at the
Douglas border crossing where he said that he was a refugee. They
agreed that he was a refugee according to the rules, that he was
entitled to make a claim as a refugee, and he was in. After all
that he was in, so we started the fight.
We are very close to beating the refugee claim, with no help
whatsoever from the government. We can imagine how Tasha felt.
The reason we found out that he was back in Canada was that Tasha
met him at a gas station about eight months later.
I have to ask sane people listening to these kinds of stories if
they really think the government is dealing with these kinds of
issues. Do they really think that half-baked legislation on
extradition is working? Do they really think that appeal after
appeal after appeal under legal aid is helping our system? Do
they really think our deportation rules are helping us? I do not.
I got involved in the refugee claim with Jose Mendoza and tried
to table his 12 prior convictions including one rape but not
including Tasha's.
The refugee board says that it does not consider that. What it
considers is the effect the deportation will have on this
individual if he goes back to El Salvador a second time. I
really do not give two hoots about that.
1030
I do care about the law-abiding Canadian citizen. I do care
about the 12 prior convictions. That is what I care about and
that is what the people in my community care about. But try to
convince the group on the other side here and it does not work.
Mr. Wayne Easter: They are tightening it up.
Mr. Randy White: This is a bunch of hogwash. This is a
haven. They are tightening it up, he says. Let us see how the
Liberals are tightening it up.
Rafay and Burns committed murder in 1994. The case will be
heard by the supreme court in November. The B.C. Court of Appeal
found the minister had to refuse extradition because they faced
execution for bludgeoning Rafay's parents to death. And they are
fixing it up over there. Fixing it up, the hon. member says.
Pierino and Miachael Divito, Mafia figures, are wanted in the
U.S. for conspiracy to import 300 kilos of cocaine. Three
hundred kilos, in case there is anyone who does not know, is a
lot. It goes to court because of “much harsher drug sentences
handed out in the U.S.” “We will go all the way to the supreme
court, their lawyer vows”. Is that not nice?
And they say they are fixing it up. Fixing it up. Let us see
here.
The leader of the Rock Machine biker gang, a Mr. Cazzetta,
wanted in the U.S. on drug trafficking charges. He delayed
extradition for four years with arguments taken all the way to
the supreme court. And they are fixing it up they say.
Michael Gwynne, a fugitive serving a 120-year sentence. Have we
ever heard of that in Canada? He was apprehended in 1993. He
has argued the case for five years all the way to the supreme
court on our money. And they are fixing it up they say.
The Liberals have such a funny way of fixing things up. The
problem in the House is that time and time and time again
legislation that is supposed to be fixing things up is
ineffectual. When it gets down to dealing with these issues in
the communities, on the streets with police, law-abiding Canadian
citizens say “Who is running that nuthouse in Ottawa anyway”.
There the Liberals are over there reading their notes to see if
they can counteract what I am saying.
I do not know what we can do other than to get rid of that
motley crew over there and elect a government that maybe will
address the issues on the street, maybe will go back to
grassroots Canadians and ask them what is really bothering them.
Any one of the members across the way should just once try to
fight for their community on a deportation hearing, a bogus
refugee claim by a criminal trying to stay in Canada, or an
extradition hearing like the ones I just read. Do it at a parole
hearing of somebody who should not be out on the streets, a
section 745 hearing, the faint hope clause, for a multiple
murderer who should not be out on the streets. Do it on a DNA
bill which the Liberals suggest is benefiting the country.
1035
With the DNA bill which just went through the House the police
will not take DNA samples from currently incarcerated individuals
unless they are multiple murderers, multiple sex offenders or
dangerous offenders, which is such a small minority of those in
prison today. There are approximately 15,000 federal inmates and
approximately 15,000 provincial inmates who will not have DNA
samples taken. Those are the kinds of legislative problems the
government does not understand.
I wish government members could have been there when I was with
a friend of mine in my riding not too long ago. She had been
sexually assaulted and her store had been robbed by James
Armbruster. Before that he had been in Sumas centre. I call it
daycare for prisoners; it is called a community correctional
centre. There is no DNA attached to this guy. He was in Sumas
centre with 63 prior convictions, count them all, 63 prior
convictions. He got out and added two more, sexual assault and
robbery. And the Liberals say they are dealing with the issues.
We have to be there to understand. We have to get out of these
seats in Ottawa, go back home and sit down with victims of
violence to understand how they feel, from Brian Lee's jewellery
store, to Tasha who was raped by José, to my friend who was raped
by Armbruster who had 63 prior convictions. It makes one sick to
listen to it.
This bill on extradition is ineffective, as are most of the
government's other bills. In my last 50 seconds I am going to
try to say something nice. It was nice knowing you but I cannot
wait until the next election. These kinds of ineffective bills
go through this House with the Liberal majority government. Then
those bills go through the Senate and the Liberals' appointed
friends and neighbours rubber stamp them. That is not going to
wash any longer. The Canadian public is damned sick and tired of
it.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, does my colleague agree that this bill in its present
form will do nothing at all to have a catch-up? There are
approximately 18,000 refugees in Canada. This deportation bill
will have no effect at all unless there is some screening for
people coming into this country the same way there has been in
the past. We will be no better off with this bill in place in
getting rid of the large number of people claiming refugee status
than we were before the passage of this bill.
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, I have a point of
clarification. This bill is about extradition which is removing
people with criminal records from the country. It is not mutually
exclusive with deportation.
One of the things criminals often do is they claim refugee status
to avoid extradition and deportation.
1040
The member is absolutely right. This country has a backlog of
these cases, it is sad to say. In the last parliament when we
had a backlog of these cases, the government said “We have such
a backlog, we cannot deal with it so maybe we should put them all
on a fast track and bring them in”. Out go the citizenship
papers and guess what we are left with.
I would like to think that all the speeches from my colleagues
are going to amount to a lot of difference. But in this country
where there is a majority government and the Liberals now have
their buddies in the Senate, these bills go through. Canadians
deserve a lot better than this. They deserve some consideration
for laws that work.
I have been involved with a lot of victims rights groups in my
short time in this House. Victims and potential victims, honest
law-abiding Canadian citizens deserve a lot better than they are
getting now.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
in my riding of Peace River, immigration is one of the main areas
I have to work with as an MP.
A lot of people want to come into this country. Canada has been
built on immigration and I think will continue to be built on
immigration. There are a lot of potential candidates for
immigration who would make excellent Canadian citizens.
On the other side, we saw the Minister for Citizenship and
Immigration last year let in about 4,500 people on special
ministerial permits, fast tracking that whole process. Of those
4,500, something like 1,000 to 1,100 had criminal records
including charges of murder and rape in their own country.
Considering that such a terrific amount of people want to come
and make Canada their home and would make good citizens, what
does my colleague think of the process of having those special
ministerial permits? They essentially bypass the process where
we should be extraditing those criminals back to their own
countries to face charges rather than giving them Canadian
citizenship.
An hon. member: I don't think so.
Mr. Randy White: One of the Liberals said “I don't think
so”. That has been the problem. They don't think, so.
My hon. colleague is right. So many good people want to come to
Canada, so why are we slipping in those who in effect are risks
to our society? I do not have an answer for that. They have
criminal records and I think the hon. member opposite would admit
that. We know that to be true. It escapes me, quite frankly.
Why that attitude? Why can we not select better? Why can we not
bring in other people rather than the criminals? Why can we not
look at a tougher criteria?
There are many good people out there whom we want in this
country and many come in. But the minority few, the
approximately 1,100 we talked about here, leave a trail of crime
behind them. This is serious. Then once they come in under a
visa, they say “Now I am a refugee. If you want to get rid of
me, it is really tough to get me out”, which it is. I cannot
understand for the life of me why we go through all the expense
and time and pain to individuals.
If someone is a drug dealer in another country or if someone
raped and pillaged in another country, exactly what do we think
they are going to do here? Start teaching school?
1045
Think a bit about this. I have a great problem with the
philosophy over there but then again, look at this. Who is
listening?
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I could not resist the temptation to make a comment
about what has been said regarding the permit system. I have
been a member of the House of Commons for about 10 years now and
I think the immigration system would be in great difficulty, and
I hope the members opposite would recognize it, if there were not
a permit system available.
It is virtually impossible to design an immigration system that
will cover every single facet of family relationships, business
relationships and international relationships. There are times
when the immigration rules simply do not work and look stupid.
That is not because they were designed to be stupid, it is
because those rules cannot cover every situation. That is why
the permit system is there. It deals with the very rough edges.
Every member of parliament in this House has had to deal with
stupid rules within the system, not designed to be stupid but
they are stupid because of a real life situation that does not
fit within the paradigm designed. That is why the permit system
is there. That is why it deals with difficult systems.
I would not want to be a member of parliament if there were not
a permit system that offered a band-aid or a fix to a very
difficult human situation. Members opposite think that is stupid.
They think it looks dumb. It would look even dumber if the
permit system were not there.
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, with all due respect to
the member, I think he is a little confused.
It is not only the permit system that is the crux of the problem
here. Once one comes into this country I would expect there are
two relatively basic principles: one obeys the laws and
contributes to the welfare of the country. If the laws are not
obeyed in this country one of the greatest difficulties is the
removal. The removal is part of the problem; appeal after appeal.
There is an abuse of the legal aid system. I think the hon.
member is a lawyer. I do not know if he has ever been involved
in this but I have. I see abuse of that system every single day
I am involved in it with victims. Lawyers abuse it and the
individual who should be thrown out of the country abuses it. The
member should not shake his head. There is an answer to it. Fix
the damn system.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill
C-40, an act respecting extradition to amend the Criminal
Evidence Act, the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and the
Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. It will also
amend other consequential pieces of legislation and the
amendments may have some ripple effect throughout the country in
our justice system.
It is truly an honour and somewhat shocking to be speaking on
two substantial justice bills on two consecutive days. This is
probably the first time since I have been elected to parliament
that we have been debating two justice bills in such close
proximity.
I am very hopeful and optimistic that this perhaps signals a
change in priorities from this government. I am hoping this is a
sign of good things to come. Hope burns eternal in that regard.
I also hope that the justice minister is not going to find
herself on a flight home this weekend with a Liberal seatmate and
chat about justice matters in such an open way as her colleague,
the solicitor general.
In more simple and less partisan terms this legislation
essentially merges our 100 year old Extradition Act and our
Fugitive Act into a new and modern Extradition Act. This is
following the lead of other countries and the sensible calls from
many in our country.
1050
I share the belief of the parliamentary secretary that the
objectives of this bill are positive and even noble. Several
events justify the revision and update of our Extradition Act.
Not only is it 100 years old but it does not deal with modern
criminality. Modern criminality involves such things as
telemarketing fraud and the use of Internet to commit an offence
in another jurisdiction.
Sadly we have seen a great rise in this type of criminal
activity in Canada of late. These technological realities draw
attention to just how outdated this legislation has become.
The present act is not flexible enough to accommodate changes
arising from within the globalization of criminal activity such
as drug trade, organized and transborder crimes.
Organized crime has reached crisis levels in this country. This
under a Liberal government comes according to a very reliable
source, mainly the police and security officers who are daily
forced to deal with this type of activity.
My hope is that this type of legislation will certainly be a
step in the right direction and will certainly help stem this
rising tide of criminal activity.
The Extradition Act was last amended in 1991 by the former
Progressive Conservative government. Bill C-31 considerably
reduced delays in extradition cases and at that time groups
within the law enforcement community and security intelligence
agencies were already requesting a large overhaul of the entire
system.
The former Conservative government also passed the Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters Act which also becomes the subject
of this debate today. The Conservative government's legislation,
however, enabled Canada to co-operate more effectively with other
countries in the investigation and prosecution of transnational
and international crimes such as acts of terrorism, drug
smuggling and money laundering.
Sadly, as I mention this the U.S. State Department's most recent
“International Narcotics Control Strategy Report” listed Canada
as one of the most attractive locations for laundering illegal
cash.
The Liberal government has let our country fall into this
category and it is mentioned in the same breath as Brazil and the
Cayman Islands. This is not a glowing reference that comes from
our international best trading partner, the United States.
Bill C-40 does propose changes to merge the Extradition Act and
the Fugitive Offenders Act and this new act would allow Canada to
meet its international obligations since it would allow
extradition to international criminal courts and tribunals,
including war crimes tribunals. A person would therefore be
extradited if the act committed is considered a crime in Canada
and in that state.
Requirements for some form of evidence would then become more
flexible and this would bring Canada's extradition procedures and
practices closer or more in line with those of other countries.
It raises the level of co-operation and of course we always have
expected a high level of co-operation from our trading partner
the United States.
The government hopes it would prevent fugitives from considering
Canada as a safe haven and avoiding having to come to grips or to
face justice within their own country or within Canada depending
on where the crime had been committed. This new act also retains
the Progressive Conservative amendment to Bill C-31 to maintain
an effective extradition process.
Canadians have continually expressed concerns about our
extradition laws and they want to prevent their country from
becoming this so-called safe haven for fugitives.
Over the past number of years several high profile cases such as
Ng, Kindler, Maersk Dubai, which occurred on the high seas
and resulted in arrests in the Port of Halifax, and the Narita
airport bombing have caused a raised consciousness of some of the
shortcomings of the current legislation.
As well, there have been numerous concerns expressed by our
extradition partners at the international level and this again
demonstrates the need for reform and modernization of this law.
Indeed I was pleased to add my name to the many Canadians who
objected this summer to the scheduled deportation of those
involved in the Maersk Dubai as witnesses and crew members.
New Brunswick Conservative Senator Erminie Cohen played a key
role in soliciting support for those brave men who had the
courage to come forward and report to authorities the atrocities
that occurred on the high seas.
I publicly commend her for her efforts in that regard.
1055
One of the other major concerns with this current legislation is
that Canada requires countries requesting extradition of a
fugitive to submit their request according to a fairly narrow
approach to what is acceptable evidence. This creates real
difficulty especially for countries working within a civil law
system. They are forced to rely on facts and accept a wider
variety in terms of the type of evidence that will be admissible.
Other concerns include that difficulty for Canada to meet its
international obligations to the international criminal courts or
tribunals as Canada cannot extradite a fugitive to such a body
under the present regime.
When extradition legislation was adopted in Canada over 100
years ago many forms of telecommunication we now know did not
exist, nor did airplanes. The current legislation is silent on
some of these newer types of crimes such as telemarketing fraud,
theft of information by computer, use of the Internet to commit
an offence in another jurisdiction. It is inflexible in that
regard.
The increasing mobility of individuals is a reality that did not
exist. This again makes it difficult for effective extradition
relations with our international partners and again highlights
the critical need for changes in this act.
Following a comprehensive review and consultation with many of
our partners, the Extradition Act and the Fugitive Offenders Act
required many major changes to reflect these modern procedures
and practices. This bill tabled by the Liberal government would
provide a single act that exemplifies the extradition process in
Canada for our partners who wish to extradite a fugitive from
Canada to their country or reciprocally for Canada to bring
fugitives back to this country to face justice here.
At the same time this will would also provide enhanced
protection and safeguards for persons who are the subject of an
extradition request.
It is a well known maxim that we do not take our charter rights
outside of Canada. But this does set up certain guidelines that
will ensure that Canadian rights are protected both within and
outside our country.
This proposed legislation would bring the extradition process
into the 20th century and certainly make it more accessible to
foreign states, bringing our extradition procedures and practices
closer to those of other countries and, more important, prevent
Canada from becoming a safe have for fugitives who want to avoid
facing the full brunt of the law in countries where they commit
crimes.
One aspect of the legislation that is neglectful and where there
is a common theme is that of financing. The government passes law
apparently without any appreciation of the cost. Most recently
we have seen pronouncements from the solicitor general with
respect to organized crime. His tough talk on organized crime is
resonated throughout the policing community. Yet at the same
time we learn from the auditor general that $74 million has been
cut from the RCMP organized crime budget for this fiscal year, a
very apparent and shocking contradiction.
The Liberal government passed Bill C-68 and will no longer deny
that the implementation cost is now in the range of $350 million
when the former justice minister told us at the time that the
cost would be $85 million. Some estimates place the eventual
cost at somewhere in the range of $.5 billion to $1 billion.
So we are now discussing two bills sponsored by the Minister of
Justice. Yet there remains a shortfall of over $200 million in
the national policing services. Since 1993 CSIS has lost more
than 20% of its employees and its operating budget again is in
decline. No matter how well intentioned this legislation, how
does the government expect its law enforcement agencies to
enforce this type of law without adequate resources for front
line policing?
But the police soldier on. I have had the pleasure of working
with many police in our country, officers like Kevin Scott—
The Speaker: My colleague, as it is 11 o'clock, we
will proceed to Statements by Members. The hon. member has
about nine minutes left in his speech.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
TRANSPORT
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for the past year Mississauga East residents have been
subjected to intolerable levels of noise from low flying aircraft
due to the operation of the new north-south runway.
The aircraft are now flying so low over residential areas and
generating so much noise that one child could not hear his
father's call to get out of the way of an oncoming vehicle.
This runway has been anything but a vehicle promoting safety.
1100
The local airport authority, the GTAA, has refused to consider
any restrictions on its use which might alleviate the impact on
residents until after it settles its dispute over development
fees for the city of Mississauga.
I call on the Minister of Transport to amend the operational
standards set by his department to restrict the usage of the new
north-south runway to only those hours when the volume of flights
exceeds the capacity of the existing north-south runway.
This is a measure which is safe, efficient and which—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Elk Island.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today I
would like to add a powerful influential voice to the argument in
favour of an elected Senate.
Here is a quote: “The Liberal government in two years will
make the Senate elected. As Prime Minister I can make that
happen. ” That was the person who is now the Prime Minister
making a speech in Alberta in October 1990.
Here is another quotation from this influential voice: “To
meet the hopes and dreams of those who live in the west and the
Atlantic, a reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate
that is elected, effective and equitable”. I am quoting the
Prime Minister of the country who said those words right here in
the House of Commons on September 24, 1991.
Why does the Prime Minister now argue against an elected Senate?
If his words in the past meant anything, he should now be working
hard to achieve these reforms. He is powerful and influential.
Albertans are getting sick and tired of his continual excuse
making. Let him get on with the job and do it.
* * *
THE HOMELESS
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
interim report of the Toronto mayor's Homelessness Action Task
Force reveals that in Toronto every night about 3,000 individuals
stay in shelters. In addition, about 37,000 are on a waiting
list for subsidized social housing and an additional 40,000 are
spending more than half of their income on rent or living in
extremely precarious housing.
Furthermore, Toronto shelters provide emergency services as well
as shelter for the chronically homeless.
This urgent situation is aggravated by the fact that the Ontario
government is downloading responsibility for social housing to
municipalities. There is therefore a great need for the federal
government to provide funding for people in need of social
housing units.
* * *
HOCKEY
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, hockey is the tie that binds this country together
from coast to coast. It is the game that Canadians love the
most.
As a new NHL season begins tonight we must not forget the
athletes who play on our country's most important hockey team,
Team Canada.
I am very proud to announce that one of my constituents in the
great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has just been named
to our national team.
Last season Shawn Heins was the top rookie defenceman in the
International Hockey League. He set an IHL record with a 99.5
mile an hour slapshot. He is now under contract to the San Jose
Sharks. Shawn Heins is from Eganville.
Two years ago another Eganville lad, Dale McTavish, played for
Canada's national team. He went on to play for the Calgary
Flames before becoming the top scorer for Saipa in the Finnish
Elite League.
It is indeed a remarkable achievement for any small village of
1,300 people to produce such high calibre hockey players. It is
the contribution to Team Canada which we enjoy the most.
The people of Eganville and the entire valley salute and are
proud of both Shawn and Dale.
* * *
THUNDER BAY REGIONAL ARTS COUNCIL
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, from October 13 to 27 my riding is holding a citywide
celebration of events and displays co-ordinated by the Thunder
Bay Regional Arts Council.
This celebration aims to heighten community awareness of arts
and heritage in Thunder Bay and to provide increased
opportunities and exposure for artists' organizations.
The central event of this celebration is a four day long arts
fair during which artists and art organizations display,
demonstrate and provide hands-on activities to the public. This
fair gives the community an opportunity to participate and
create, enriching the community's creative experience.
I encourage all members of the House to support the artistic
communities in their ridings.
* * *
UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a crisis in Cariboo—Chilcotin, as there is
throughout much of British Columbia.
In my riding unemployment has reached 14.8%. This is
unacceptable.
The federal government has tied our lumber manufacturers to a
softwood quota agreement with the United States that we cannot
get out of.
Now it is killing some of our producers who cannot get enough
quota.
1105
Now the placer miners are telling me that gun-toting fisheries
and oceans officers have been raiding them and threatening to
close the miners down because they do not want them on the
rivers. What will happen next?
Like so many other issues that this government has tackled over
the past five years, the Liberals lack vision to seek long term
solutions to serious problems and fail to look at the long term
consequences of their knee-jerk reactions before implementing new
policies.
My constituents are asking: Where is the vision? Where is the
leadership? They are demanding answers now.
Today in Caribou—Chilcotin the unemployment rate is 14.8% and
rising. Does the government not care? The facts speak for
themselves.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know
the RCMP is a very important part of our heritage and indeed a
part of our very being as a nation.
This week I attended the performance “The Colour of Pride”
which draws on and illustrates that history, their triumphs,
their tragedies and their courage. The presentation by eight
RCMP members through music, drama and song was, for me, a chance
to experience the pride, the passion and the performance of 125
years of RCMP history.
“The Colour of Pride” enhanced my respect and appreciation of
the over 21,000 men and women who serve our nation. The show
made me particularly proud to be a Canadian.
Congratulations to the entire cast and crew of “The Colour of
Pride”. I extend special recognition to the efforts of fellow
islanders Constable Kim Hendricken and Inspector Andy Arsenault.
Our thanks and our respects.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR BOURASSA
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his
statement made yesterday, the member for Bourassa once again
experienced problems with the facts.
He said that constituents in the riding of Rimouski—Mitis support
the misappropriation of employment insurance surplus funds that
the Minister of Finance is preparing behind the back of the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
In fact, it is just the opposite. People in the riding of
Rimouski—Mitis clearly said the federal government must use the
surpluses hidden by the Minister of Finance to immediately repay
the provinces for health and reduce personal income tax.
The member for Bourassa misrepresented the facts and he is
trying once again to turn to his advantage the good initiatives
taken by the Bloc Quebecois, whether it is our public
consultations on what to do with the surpluses, or our Quebec
lamb dinner.
Perhaps it is time the Liberal member realized he is making a
fool of himself.
Relax, Max.
* * *
[English]
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION ACT
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the United States Congress brought good news to
residents of Canadian border cities yesterday when it decided to
delay by 30 months the enforcement of its harsh new entry law.
Without this delay section 110 of the United States Immigration
Act would have created massive lineups and a host of other
problems for those crossing into the United States. This
certainly would have impeded tourism and in doing so it would
have had a devastating effect on the economies of border cities
like Sault Ste. Marie.
I wish to thank Lloyd Axworthy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs
for the leadership—
The Speaker: Colleagues, we do not use each other's names
in the House of Commons. I am sure the member will not do it
again.
Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I wish to thank the Minister of
Foreign Affairs for the leadership role he has played and his
effective efforts in lobbying the American Congress and Senate
for a Canadian exemption to this ill-conceived legislation. It
appears that the American Congress is now listening, albeit in
the 11th hour, to the legitimate concerns and objections raised
on Canada's behalf by our Minister of Foreign Affairs.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if I
had one reason to reform the Senate, that would be worthy of
consideration. If I had 10 reasons, surely that would merit even
more serious consideration. Today I have not one, not 10, but
7,009 reasons for Senate reform.
Point one: So 7,000 petitions from Alberta brought by QR77's
Dave Rutherford get a hearing before they go into the Prime
Minister's trash bin.
Point two: So Canadians are not lying when they say live in a
democracy.
Point three: So Plato and Socrates do not role over in their
graves.
Point four: So the world can see that Canada is not a banana
republic run by a pepper eating dictator.
Point five: So Canadians can hold senators like Andrew Thompson
directly accountable for subsidized siestas.
Point six: So senators do not get pensions they have not shown
up to earn.
Point seven: So senators feel more inclined to show up for
their 65 day work year.
Point eight: So citizens across the country are treated
equally.
Point nine: So Liberals can no longer appoint their hacks and
bagmen who fail to get elected.
Point ten: So 91% of Albertans get the respect they deserve.
* * *
1110
JACOB AND MATHEW BROWN
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to highlight the selfless
contribution of two young individuals from Carleton Place in my
riding.
For the past four years Jacob and Mathew Brown, aged 8 and 10,
have forgone their birthday presents in favour of family and
friends making a donation to breast cancer research. In
addition, the two brothers have been making beaded jewellery to
be sold at local craft fairs. Jacob's and Mathew's altruistic
acts have amounted to donations of over $1,700 to breast cancer
research.
This year it is estimated that close to 20,000 Canadian women
will contract breast cancer. The cause is unknown and it cannot
be prevented.
Only by funding research can we hope to find the cure for this
horrible disease.
Mathew and Jacob have asked me to pass along this message to
Canada: Children can make a difference. They ask everyone to
take up the challenge to help defeat breast cancer.
I congratulate these two boys on their continuing dedication to
an important cause.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
October 17 is the International Day for the Elimination of
Poverty.
Sadly, I do not rise today to mark our progress toward achieving
that goal; I rise to lament government inaction and the
increasing poverty that stems from it.
In Canada more than five million Canadians live below the
poverty line. And, shamefully, this does not include aboriginal
peoples on reserves where social assistance does not even cover
the basic costs for food.
As we mark this day, homelessness is reaching epidemic
proportions.
In my riding of Vancouver East too many people are dealing with
the daily dilemmas of heart-wrenching poverty: where to sleep;
what to eat; how to face the hopelessness in their children's
eyes.
There are immediate steps that this government can take: amend
the Human Rights Act to include poverty as a prohibited grounds
for discrimination; declare a national emergency on homelessness;
stop the federal retreat from social housing; begin to replenish
the billions cut from social spending.
Let us make this October 17 the beginning of real action to
eliminate poverty.
* * *
[Translation]
DAVIE INDUSTRIES
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
because of the federal government's delay in acting on requests
to secure financing for the Spirit of Columbus and Amethyst
drilling platforms, on August 11, Dominion Bridge Inc. sought
bankruptcy protection.
Since its current contracts are worth over $300 million, Davie
Industries was granted an extension, until October 26, to meet
the receiver's requirements.
Since time is of the essence for the 1,000 shipyard workers in
Lévis and their families, I once again call upon the Liberal
government to take action on this issue and provide its share of
the financial guarantees requested by Davie Industries.
I also call upon all socio-economic stakeholders in the Quebec
City and Chaudière-Appalaches areas to continue to show
solidarity for the shipyard in Lévis.
* * *
UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY GENERAL
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry
selectively quoted United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan
on the matter of secession.
In fact, what the secretary general said was: If the supreme
court judgement requires a clear majority, if the majority of
Quebeckers opt for secession, and if your constitution
recognizes their right to do so, we too will have to grant that
recognition.
The secretary general is therefore referring to a clear majority
of Quebeckers on secession, and not a vague notion like
sovereignty-association. He is referring to a secession
negotiated within the framework of the Canadian Constitution,
not unilateral secession.
In fact, he is saying exactly the same thing as the Government
of Canada has been saying over and over again for the past two
and one-half years. He added—
The Speaker: The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.
* * *
[English]
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION ACT
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, while in Washington this week I met with several
congressional leaders both from the Senate and the U.S. Congress.
We now know that we have a 30 month reprieve in relation to
section 110 of the U.S. Immigration Act. However, this is not a
permanent solution. What we need is a permanent solution.
What I am asking is for the Government of Canada to pursue
vigorously a permanent solution to section 110 of the U.S.
Immigration Act.
1115
We enjoy the biggest trading relationship in the world between
Canada and the United States. We want this resolved on a
permanent basis.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning Statistics Canada has shown us that the Canadian economy
is doing well, despite the shrill opposition predictions of
catastrophe. In September, the number of jobs rose
approximately 73,000, which raises the number of additional jobs
over the year to 264,000. According to this same report, the
unemployment rate remained unchanged at 8.3%.
Yesterday, the Conference Board identified some indicators that
are a source of optimism for 1999.
According to this most reputable body, the economy can count on
real wage increases, strong exports and low interest rates,
which will encourage business investment and, as a result,
bolster our economy against the negative impact of the world
financial crisis.
There is no doubt that the priorities of the Liberal government
were the right ones: fiscal consolidation, elimination of the
deficit, and the creation of favourable conditions for—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. We now
move on to Oral Question Period.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week the solicitor general publicly discussed a business
relationship between Elmer MacKay and Karlheinz Schreiber of
Airbus fame, something no one in the country knew about. Not
even Mr. MacKay's son. Not even Mr. Schreiber's lawyer in
Edmonton. There is only one way that the solicitor general could
have known about this relationship, and that is because of an
ongoing RCMP investigation.
The proof is in. The solicitor general publicly compromised an
ongoing RCMP investigation. Will the government do the right
thing? Will the government ask for his resignation?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the operational activities of the RCMP are clearly under
the purview of the RCMP. I do not involve myself in those
operations. I would not know about those operations. I would
not discuss those operations.
The allegations that were made earlier this week, I responded to
those. My response has been supported. The rest of that
conversation was a private conversation between myself and
another Canadian citizen.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is a very serious and new charge against the solicitor
general. There is no spin. There is no interpretation. There is
no excuse for what has happened.
The solicitor general publicly commented upon and has now
jeopardized an ongoing RCMP investigation. The only reason the
solicitor general had this information was because he was trusted
with this information by the RCMP, and he has broken that trust.
Will the government do the right thing and ask for the solicitor
general's immediate resignation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is
unwarranted, as explained by the solicitor general. Therefore
the direct answer to the hon. member's question is no.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is hard to believe. I do not know what it takes for the
government to see wrong when it is staring it in the face.
The solicitor general knew of a business relationship between
Karlheinz Schreiber and Elmer MacKay. Now the only way he knew
that information was because he was trusted with that information
by the RCMP. Then the solicitor general spoke publicly about
confidential information given to him in trust by the RCMP.
What does it take? He has to go. Demand his resignation. What
does it take?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said categorically, and I will say it again,
information that is acquired in an operational exercise by the
RCMP or any agency is not information that I am privy to. It is
not information that I am involved with. I would not know it. If
I did know it I would not talk about it.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this was not a private conversation, now, was it?
The solicitor general's loose lips let a closely guarded secret
slip, basically a business relationship uncovered in the ongoing
Airbus investigation that no one else in the country knew about.
No one else, with the exception of the RCMP.
If putting an RCMP investigation in jeopardy is not worthy of a
resignation, just what is?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, I would never discuss an RCMP investigation
under any circumstances. I am not involved in them. It is the
purview of the RCMP.
1120
The allegations that were made this week were by the member for
Palliser. I responded to those allegations. I was supported by
the person who sat beside me on the aircraft. I stand by my
statement.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, are we all listening to this? He did not discuss the
Airbus situation.
Do the names Elmer Mackay and Karlheinz Schreiber mean anything
at all to the solicitor general? Why does the government not
just wake up and demand this fellow's resignation right now?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my answer is very clear and very categorical. The fact
remains that the internal operations of the RCMP are the purview
of the RCMP. I would not involve myself. I would not know about
it.
The rest of the conversation, beyond the allegations to which I
have responded, is a private conversation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
Yesterday, the member for Palliser swore under oath in the House
that he was telling the truth about the Solicitor General's
remarks he heard on the airplane. He even challenged the
Solicitor General to prove otherwise, but the minister ducked
the issue once again.
Why is the Solicitor General refusing to rise in the House and
swear under oath that he is telling the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Palliser did not swear a formal oath in the House.
[English]
I would like members to take a look at yesterday's Ottawa
Citizen in which reporters replicated the situation that is
the matter of controversy. They said:
The plane vibrates, the engines drone, and the ventilation system
creates a constant, breathy whirr.
A citizen reporter—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, to continue droning my
answer, the Citizen article says “a Citizen reporter
playing Mr. Proctor's eavesdropping role on two unsuspecting
passengers sitting opposite” said the two men obviously knew
each other and spoke sporadically, “but much of their discourse
is lost in the din”.
Here is some independent evidence about the circumstances
leading to this controversy in the House. I suggest hon. members
take a look at the Citizen to see what happened when
current reporters tried to take notes of a conversation under the
circumstance raised by the member for Palliser. They could not
do it. They—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
something very serious has just happened in the House.
The Solicitor General is rising in his place and refusing to
swear an oath. He is taking cover behind a completely
insignificant alibi. He would therefore be unable to swear an
oath outside the House if called upon to do so, as the member
for Palliser has promised to do if asked.
What is the Solicitor General waiting for to resign?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the exercise we have been engaged in during the last
week in the House after my statement in response to the original
allegations has been political theatre, and I am not prepared to
play.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I too have a question for the Solicitor General.
The minister's entire defence is based on the letter from his
Liberal friend, Frederick D. Toole. We know that this
individual has contributed to the Liberal Party coffers, as has
his law firm, which has received several government contracts.
The very least that can be said is that, when he signed his
letter to the minister, Mr. Toole found himself in an extremely
awkward situation.
Since his alibi is so unbelievable, what is the minister waiting
for to resign?
1125
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the most important thing to consider in terms of
the credibility of the person sitting beside me was the fact that
he was sitting beside me and not an aisle and a half away.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on the one hand, we have a valueless letter, which does not say
what the minister would like it to and, on the other, we have
the honour of a member who rises in his place and swears he told
the truth.
Will the minister agree that, if his only defence is that the
letter proves him right, then he does not have a leg to stand on
and should resign?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker. The questions all week have
been based on the notes that were taken by an eavesdropper in a
noisy aircraft a seat and a half away.
I think this is a tactic unfamiliar to Canadians and one that
Canadians will reject.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the revelation about the relationship between Karlheinz Schreiber
and Elmer MacKay is something that could not have been known by
anybody else and was not known by anybody else.
It not only points out the impropriety of the solicitor
general's actions but the fact that the notes taken by the member
for Palliser are accurate. No one has accused him of being
psychic. He could not have pulled this out of thin air.
The fact is that this points to the fact that the solicitor
general was talking in the way that the member for Palliser said
he was. He committed another indiscretion and he should resign.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said, I would not be involved in an
operational activity in the RCMP. I would not be aware of that
information. I was not aware of that information as it relates
to any particular investigation. That is the fact.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Does he
not see that this latest revelation points to the complete
veracity of what the member for Palliser has said and that this
is cause for the government to ask for the resignation of the
solicitor general?
While he is at it, will he tell us why the Prime Minister is
unteachable and keeps making jokes about Canadian students
getting pepper sprayed when he should know better? He should not
have done that in the first place the first time, never mind the
second time.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why do the hon. member's party and the other parties in
opposition keep making allegations that in effect amount to
prejudging the outcome of the inquiry? Why do they not answer
that?
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, last night on CBC radio the executive director of
the New Brunswick Liberal Party said that the solicitor general
told him that PM referred to in the RCMP officer's notes was the
Prime Minister and that PMO referred to the Prime Minister's
Office.
This is further proof that the solicitor general discussed a
sensitive matter with political pals. His reference to Hughie
can be no other person but Hughie Stewart, the APEC fall guy.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. When will the
government show some respect for this institution and demand the
solicitor general's resignation? The verdict is in.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I could say I rest my case. The hon. member is
prejudging the whole matter. He says that the verdict is in.
Where is the fairness? Where is the justice? Where is the
equity? He is completely lacking in those qualities and he
should recognize it. On that the verdict is in.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, that is quite a statement from a man so intricately
involved in the Airbus investigation.
Another day, another detail is confirmed from the notes of the
member for Palliser. The member for Palliser has pledged to
swear an oath on his version of events on Thursday's Air Canada
flight.
Yesterday I moved a motion in the justice committee to summons
the member for Palliser, the solicitor general and Fred Toole to
testify under oath on what was said.
Will the solicitor general show the same courage and integrity
as the member for Palliser and testify under oath at the justice
committee? Or, will he submit to a lie detector test?
The Speaker: I would like the hon. member to withdraw the
last statement about a lie detector test.
Mr. Peter MacKay: I withdraw that statement, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said earlier, this whole exercise beyond the first
day's allegations and my response is pure political theatre.
1130
I think the hon. members do a discredit to this House and I will
not participate.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, what a difference a few years makes. Let me quote a
former Prime Minister who was Leader of the Opposition at the
time. Turner said “The government's vigorous defence of the
embattled minister made a mockery of public ethics. A minister
has a duty and a burden of proof to show that what he is doing is
beyond reproach”. The Liberal leader also said “This is a
question of ethics, a question of honesty and is a question of
deportment in public affairs”.
Let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister, has his government changed
its standards from when it was in opposition? Why have the
Liberals changed their standards? Why will—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why has the hon. member changed his standards from when
he was a Conservative member? At that time he supported strongly
the public complaints commission. Now he is raising questions
about its use, veracity and value. Why has he changed his
standards?
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with the former Conservative
government which this minister keeps saying I was part of. This
deals with the ethics of this government.
Let me quote the member for Hamilton West when he was in
opposition and told a news conference that Charest should resign
regardless of whether he intended to interfere with the court
process. It is a matter of public ethics. It is a matter of
parliamentary ethics. The minister has damaged the parliamentary
system. He should resign until this case is settled. The Deputy
Prime Minister knows this.
Canadians want to know why the government is still defending
him. Will he phone the Prime Minister in Winnipeg, get him away
from his pepper steak dinner and get the resignation right now?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I reject the unwarranted assertions and the premise of
the hon. member's question. I think he ought to give a phone
call to his leader to see how he should be carrying out his
duties. That is his first task.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Solicitor General has talked about bad political theatre in this
House. The problem is that his performance is a dismal comedy.
One thing is sure: the Solicitor General is an unrepentant
chatterbox and his chattering is incompatible with his duties.
The little credibility left to the RCMP commission of inquiry is
lost because of the actions of the Solicitor General. If he
wants the commission to regain its credibility, why does he not
resign?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
erroneous allegations of the member and the other members of the
opposition are what is undermining the commission's credibility,
if in fact it is being undermined. I think they are totally
wrong to ask such questions. Are they trying to undermine the
commission's credibility? I hope not.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy
Prime Minister has to answer for the Solicitor General because
he knows that the Solicitor General's credibility is undermined.
The Solicitor General is also responsible for the RCMP. Now,
because of his chattiness, the relationship of trust between the
Solicitor General and the RCMP is broken. In any case, since
the RCMP no longer trusts the minister, why, once again, does he
not resign?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the questions that we have heard all week are based on
the inaccurate notes of an eavesdropper. I responded to the
allegations that were put. My response was supported by the
person with whom I was having the conversation. As I said
earlier, I do not think Canadians take kindly to these tactics.
They are unfamiliar in Canada and unworthy of the hon. member.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
Vancouver the government has a platoon of taxpayer funded lawyers
to hide the Prime Minister's involvement in the APEC scandal. The
commission has requested funding for the students' legal costs.
The solicitor general has refused, leaving the public interest
represented by one unpaid lawyer. The solicitor general is
clearly in a conflict of interest here.
Will the solicitor general commit here and now to provide
funding for the students as requested by the commission so it can
get to the bottom of this scandal?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we received a request earlier this week for additional
funding for the students. That request is being considered at
this time.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to again ask a question of the
solicitor general. How did the solicitor general get the
confidential information about the ongoing investigation?
He has made denials. We have heard admissions. We want to know
the facts. How did he get that information?
1135
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, information that would be acquired through an
operational exercise by the RCMP or any other agency under my
responsibility is operational. I would not be privy to that. I
would not be involved in that. That is the reason that I have
denied the fact that I have received that information in that
fashion.
* * *
[Translation]
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Solicitor General. In the past, a number of ministers
have lost their positions through lack of judgment. Jean
Charest, for example, lost his job after phoning a judge, and
Alan Redway lost his after making a bad joke about guns while
going through customs. There was also the Liberal "Rat Pack"
who used to call for ministers' heads over peccadilloes.
Why are the Liberals today applauding what used to bring them
roaring to their feet on their desks calling for the heads of
Conservative ministers?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, the allegations that have been put I have
responded to. It has been supported. I am very confident in my
position in this regard. I wish the hon. members would get on
with the nation's business.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week,
the Solicitor General chatted about the matters under his
responsibility on a plane. This week, he chatted in the gym
with a Conservative colleague, to justify himself, it seems.
Why is the government not dismissing this dangerous serial
chatterer?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all week long I have been suggesting that the
allegations that have been made were based on inaccurate
information. I have said it many times in response to many
questions and I say it again.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like you to convey to the solicitor general that
after the Thanksgiving break we will be back on this question.
My question today is for the agriculture minister. There is a
growing farm crisis in western Canada. In 1997 farm incomes have
dropped by over an average of 50%. The net income stabilization
account would help some farmers but it will not help most of the
farmers.
Is the minister prepared today to admit that NISA does not meet
the needs of real Canadian farmers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member again that we
have the best safety net system of any farm population in the
world.
We are reviewing with the industry, and that review has been
ongoing having started a number of months ago, how we can better
make the investment there, to the betterment of the industry. We
will continue to do that.
Unfortunately there is a world commodity dip in prices for
farmers all around the world. That is little consolation to our
farmers, I understand. We are working with the industry in
co-operation with them to strengthen the industry to the best of
everybody's interest.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Canadian farmers are facing difficult times, as my colleague has
just suggested. Commodity prices are reaching lows something
like the ones 30 years ago. At the same time the European Union
managed to find over $50 billion to subsidize its farmers this
year alone.
What specific plan has the Minister for International Trade to
defend our Canadian farmers against these unfair subsidies?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish the member had listened to the
answer I gave a moment ago. We are working with the industry. We
have a very solid safety net plan in the industry at the present
time. We are working with the industry to improve that as time
goes on. I look forward to that co-operation in the industry,
which we have always had, as well as the co-operation of the hon.
member.
* * *
[Translation]
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Frankly, Liberal members
have a nerve trying to persuade us that the person in the wrong
is not the Solicitor General, who discusses government business
on an airplane, but our NDP colleague, whose misfortune it was
to be there and hear the minister's remarks.
Will the Prime Minister come back to reality, show some judgment
and sack the Solicitor General immediately?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
because the Prime Minister has such good judgment that he has no
intention whatsoever of calling for the Solicitor General's
resignation.
* * *
1140
[English]
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the House heads into Thanksgiving break, I think that independent
of the complex issue, all Canadians share concern about the
health of the merchant navy hunger strikers. Can the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs
update us on what the government is doing to try to resolve this
unfortunate situation?
Mr. Bob Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans
Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member
for Leeds—Grenville for the question.
I am extremely happy to report to the House that as of this
morning, the four merchant navy veterans have agreed to end their
hunger strike.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bob Wood: Mr. Speaker, I cannot express how pleased I
am that these men will be home with their families for
Thanksgiving.
I would also like to thank members on both sides of this House,
especially the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the hon. member
for St. John.
I would also like to report that beginning next week a
consultation process will begin with various veterans
organizations, including the merchant navy which will expedite
the tabling of an omnibus bill.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture. With
farm income having dropped between 40% and 80% and farmers even
having problems putting food on their own tables, why has his
government abandoned its red book one promise to reduce farmers'
input costs and to introduce a whole farm income stabilization
program? Where is it? When is it coming?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would update
himself on the realities of the day.
Canadian farmers are probably the only farmers in the world who
have a net income stabilization account in which they can
participate. I encourage those who have not already participated
in it to do so. It is a management tool that is contributed to
not only by the individual producer, but by the provincial and
the federal governments in order to assist and to take out some
of the difficulty in the unfortunate times we are in right now of
low commodity prices.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, with the disastrous cost price squeeze that farmers are
facing, it will be a very tough year for them.
In the face of near record low prices, this government continues
to increase farmers' costs through agencies such as the Canadian
Grain Commission and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
All Canadians benefit from the services of those agencies. Will
the government make a tiny little start at addressing the farm
income crisis by ending the extortionist cost recovery programs?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here again if the hon. member cared to
get briefed on these types of issues, we have frozen a good
number of the cost recovery assessments that were made.
Concerning cost recovery, there is always a debate on what is
private good and what is public good. But probably the average
of the cost recovery is far less than 20% of the services
provided to the agriculture and agri-food industry in Canada.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
public complaints commission is now completely compromised by the
actions of the solicitor general and there is still no funding
for legal representation for student complainants.
Surely the solicitor general must acknowledge the conflict of
interest he has put himself in and the jeopardy he has created
for the process he defended.
Funding must be provided and the solicitor general must do the
right thing. Will he resign?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I feel very, very strongly about civilian oversight in
the public complaints commission. I received the request for
funding earlier this week and it is being considered right now.
* * *
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, grade
11 history students in Flin Flon held discussions on the
solicitor general's sharing of sensitive information. Here are a
few comments: “He is trying to cover his behind. He should
resign before he gets himself and his party—”
The Speaker: Your caucus may be behind you but I would
hope that we do not use words that we would not ordinarily use in
the House. I know that the hon. member will agree.
1145
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, “he should resign before
he gets himself and his party into more trouble. He should
resign. He is showing his incompetence and irresponsibility. He
should resign because he represents the RCMP. If I were an RCMP
I would not want him representing me”.
This class is listening today. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister
why does this government continue to behave in a way that
disappoints young Canadians.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why is the hon. member abusing the process of this House
and the fact that it is televised to make assertions that are
unwarranted and unjustified?
Therefore her request is certainly unjustified as well.
* * *
AIR ATLANTIC
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Labour.
On August 26, 435 employees of Air Atlantic in St. John's and
Halifax were given notice of termination as of midnight October
24. This is only eight weeks of notice. Under section 212 of the
Canadian Labour Code there must be 16 weeks of notice of
termination.
Subsequently the company applied for and was given a waiver.
Now these employees out either eight weeks notice or salary in
lieu of notice.
Why is the Minister of Labour taking money out of the pockets of
these labourers and giving it to the company?
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on October 2 a waiver was
granted to Air Atlantic regarding the 16 week notice period.
However, the minister has not granted a waiver on the
establishment of a joint planning committee because he has
determined that the provisions of the code have not been met.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister states in his waiver that whereas the minister is
satisfied that it would be unduly prejudicial to Air Atlantic to
provide 16 weeks notice, then the provision is waived.
The Canadian Labour Code is meant to protect workers, not
corporations. In the area of the highest unemployment in Canada
workers need all the protection they can have.
Could the parliamentary secretary explain to these 435 people
and their families why the Government of Canada chose to protect
Air Atlantic and not Air Atlantic employees?
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, whether the minister granted a
waiver of the notice period or not has not affected individual
employee entitlements under the code.
The company has stated that all affected employees will receive,
at minimum, their full entitlement under the code.
* * *
TAXATION
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development met in
Ottawa to discuss electronic commerce. The issue of taxation of
goods and services is a very serious one and one of great concern
to many Canadians.
Can the minister of revenue explain to us what the procedure
will be to analyse the application of this tax and actual
taxation procedure?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we had some very interesting meetings
this week. We had the ministerial conference of OECD countries
addressing the very important issue of electronic commerce and
taxation of electronic commerce.
One thing agreed on was we do not need new taxes on business
done on the Internet. We want to encourage business. We want to
make sure there is neutrality. Fundamental principles were
agreed on this week by the OECD ministers that will ensure we
have growth on the Internet and that Canada can play a leading
role in electronic commerce.
* * *
FORESTRY
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, B.C. forest practices are among the best in the world.
Forest products are Canada's largest export. A million Canadian
jobs depend on the forest industry.
Meanwhile Greenpeace is organizing pressure tactics on major
buyers in Europe and in the U.S. for B.C. forest products. It is
spending $1 million to put B.C. forest workers and their families
on welfare. The government has to take sides.
Whose side is the government on, Greenpeace or a million
Canadian workers?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have had the opportunity to review this issue in
considerable depth with the responsible minister in the B.C.
government. It was also a subject of discussion at the most
recent meeting of Canadian forestry ministers.
Together with the industry, all levels of government are working
on the appropriate strategy to make sure the world understands
sustainable development practices in the Canadian forest industry
and to explain to the world that when we manage our forests we do
it properly and in a way that the world can rely on. We will
continue to explain the Canadian case whenever we have that
opportunity.
* * *
1150
[Translation]
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is important to
clearly understand what this issue is all about.
The Solicitor General, who is responsible for safeguarding major
national secrets, is a chatterbox. He discussed his business in
a public place, and a member of this House swears he heard him
clearly.
Since there is ample evidence that the Solicitor General is
unfit to fulfil his duties, why does he not do the only
honourable thing under the circumstances and resign?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
totally reject the premise of the hon. member's question.
Obviously, if the premise is false, there is no reason to ask
the minister to resign or for the minister to change jobs.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are concerned about this government's inaction on
climate change.
In June of this year 25 Order of Canada recipients declared
immediate action on climate changes is required. The
infrastructure works programs ends in March 1999 and
municipalities are calling for an extension for climate related
projects.
What action will the Minister of Finance include in his budget
to support municipal climate projects?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada, prior to the last budget, was
investing something in the order of $100 million a year in
climate change related solutions.
In the last budget we also added the climate change action fund
which is an additional $150 million over the next three years to
accelerate the process, particularly in relation to new
technology development and deployment.
The government is moving with the provinces and with the private
sector in developing the implementation program which we hope to
have completed by the end of 1999. What we want is a truly Team
Canada effort.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
recently Canada Post announced changes to postal services in
New Brunswick to accommodate the 911 emergency services.
Residents of the town of Bear Island have always been well
served by the nearby post offices in Nackawic and Keswick.
However, the proposed changes mean that postal services are being
moved to Burtt's Corner, a great distance from Bear Island.
Can the minister assure Bear Island residents that Canada Post
will restore full postal services in their area?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because of the 911
change in the province of New Brunswick there has been a
restructuring and Canada Post has been co-operating with all the
stakeholders to accommodate Canadian citizens and will continue
to do so.
If the hon. member has a specific case I will be glad to look
into it to see what I can do.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The appointment of General Baril took place a year ago and at
that time the minister stated the general's annual report would
be made public.
Will the minister confirm to the House that he has been able to
fulfil his undertaking to publicly release his first report on
the state of Canada's armed forces?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this report was filed yesterday by the
parliamentary secretary here in the House.
This report is important for a couple of reasons. It is, first
of all, the government living up to a commitment it made that our
military and its operations would become more open and
transparent, more reports like this would be filed with this
parliament, they would be made public, they would be available
for public discussion such as at the Standing Committee on
National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
With this report we have delivered on that. There are more
reports to come. This report gives us the state of the Canadian
military.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in a speech
given in Alberta in October 1990 the Prime Minister said: “The
Liberal government in two years will make the Senate elected. As
Prime Minister I can make that happen”.
1155
The words are very clear. In two years the Senate will be
elected.
I ask the Prime Minister what is the meaning of these words
spoken.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister tried very hard to carry out what he
said in 1990 through asking for the support of the Canadian
people and the Reform Party on the Charlottetown accord.
The Reform Party opposed the Charlottetown accord. This was a
major factor in it's not being adopted. Reformers have to bear
the blame for the fact that the Charlottetown accord was defeated
and that we do not have an elected Senate right now. Let the
record show it is the fault of the Reform Party. It speaks one
way and acts another.
* * *
[Translation]
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
Yesterday, my colleague from Mercier appealed to the dignity of
the Solicitor General to put an end to the circus atmosphere
into which this House has been plunged for the past week because
of him. I am offering the minister another chance.
Will the Solicitor General do the honourable thing and step
down, so we can get on with real issues when we come back in
another week?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
there is a circus atmosphere in this House, the hon. member and
his colleagues in the opposition are the ones responsible for
it.
They are the ones who need to ask forgiveness for sullying the
atmosphere of this House. That is another reason why the
Solicitor General does not need to resign.
* * *
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last
night the Prime Minister hopped on the old Challenger and jetted out
to my riding for a $300 a plate Liberal fundraiser.
There he revealed what he and his party really feel about the
APEC pepper spray incident. He made a joke about having pepper
steak instead of rubber chicken whenever he is in western Canada.
The only thing more sickening than the Prime Minister's dirty
little jokes is the fact 1,000 Liberal Party faithfuls clapped
and laughed.
What kind of people make jokes about blinding Canadian kids with
pepper spray? What is the government's excuse for the second
time the Prime Minister has made callous and insensitive jokes
about blinding Canadian kids with pepper spray?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, can the hon. member explain why there are dozens of
editorial page cartoons on this very subject? Does he want to
censor them as well?
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Canada Post has announced that on December 1 it will slash the
earnings of its retail franchise owners from 17% to 5%.
This will force many of the franchisees out of business and the
remainder will have to drastically reduce service to their
customers.
The reason the franchise system has worked at Canada Post is the
stores are not owned by the corporation but by small business
people who understand and meet the needs of their customers.
Why is the minister so intent on reducing customer service and
driving the franchises out of business?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I announced in the
House that the implementation of the new commissions for the
franchises has been postponed until December 1 so Canada Post can
explain how it works because there will be some decrease in
commissions.
For the first time Canada Post has insured from $6,000 to
$25,000 commissions that anybody will get if they do not reach
the amount they are supposed to reach.
I think Canada Post is taking care of its franchises. It wants
their business because through that system it is better serving
Canadians.
* * *
THE ARCTIC
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is to the parliamentary secretary for environment.
I would like to know what the government is doing about
pollutants in the Arctic where we have young mothers worried
about breast feeding due to unknown substances in their
environment.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows,
Canada's eastern Arctic is seriously affected by these
pollutants. Domestically and internationally Canada is leading
the way to limit or eliminate toxic air pollutants that enter the
Canadian environment.
Following the June signing of regional agreements with 33 other
countries on 12 toxic air pollutants the recent Arctic council
ministerial meeting in Iqaluit adopted a program of action which
focuses on persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals.
* * *
1200
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before we break for Thanksgiving, one final question to
the solicitor general.
He said he had confidential information about the business
arrangement between Karlheinz Schreiber and Elmer MacKay, a
business relationship that even Elmer MacKay's son did not know
about.
Obviously the member for Palliser did not make this up. How did
the solicitor general know? Exactly who told him?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the relationship in question has been a matter of the
public record for many years.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
CREE-NASKAPI COMMISSION
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages and in
Cree and Naskapi, the 1998 report of the Cree-Naskapi commission.
I want to thank the Cree-Naskapi commission for its important
work. I look forward to reviewing the recommendations of the
commission.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to two petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee
on Fisheries and Oceans, presented to the House on Thursday,
April 2, be concurred in.
It is an interim report on the west coast of Canada concerning
fisheries management issues which was tabled in the House on
April 2, 1998. The government's response was tabled in the House
on September 16.
The government, through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans,
is letting down the west coast big time. Earlier this week I
spoke about how the issue of foreign fishing on the east coast
has totally compromised the ability of fisheries managers to
properly look after Canadian interests and the environment.
On the west coast the introduction of the aboriginal fisheries
strategy pilot sales program in 1992 has compromised the ability
of DFO to manage the fisheries resource in order to optimize
social and economic benefits of the resource and to balance
necessary conservation measures.
1205
I will talk more on this subject later.
The first five recommendations of the interim report deal with
transition programs for displaced fishermen, salmon licences and
gear buyback. Since the tabling of this document in April we
have seen a $400 million promise announced on June 19 by the
minister with regard to those types of programs. None of this
money has shown up to date. The minister claims that $20 million
has been expended. But if so, where?
The salmon fishing community had a terrible season. Many people
are in desperate straits and still they wait. Successful
programs such as the North Island fisheries initiative are
waiting for funding. Human Resources Development Canada program
managers are concerned because anticipated funds from the $400
million program have not arrived and still they wait.
The minister has already announced the details of the east coast
buyback program while no announcement has been made on the west
coast. Still they wait.
The fisheries committee travelled to 11 coastal communities in
British Columbia. The committee held hearings and tabled a set
of practical recommendations. The minister accepted two. He
maintains staffing at British Columbia light stations that had
not already been destaffed three days before the Port
Moody-Coquitlam byelection, knowing the committee recommendation
was the people's choice and knowing the byelection race was
close. The other they bought into was the implementation of a
voluntary salmon licence holiday for 1998.
In virtually every other aspect of the report the bureaucratic
response to the report essentially maintains the status quo or
pays lip service to the recommendations.
New fishery opportunities are stonewalled by DFO. The west
coast is loosing new fisheries jobs because of the lack of
biological and advocacy staff at DFO and a prevailing attitude
that it is much easier to say no than to say yes.
DFO is costing British Columbia thousands of jobs by choking the
acquaculture industry in red tape and inertia. Although it is the
lead agency, DFO has allowed competing jurisdictions and
bureaucracies in the Department of the Environment and the Canada
Food Inspection Agency with its policies to inhibit existing
growers and it has stymied significant new investment through red
tape and lack of advocacy.
The creation of a big budget acquaculture commission in Ottawa is
not the answer. What is needed is a clear progressive mandate
and a budget for more biologists to vet project proposals.
The committee heard from private investors who either had
already or were prepared to invest their money in labour
intensive aquaculture only to see their hopes and dreams dashed
on the bureaucratic rocks.
I read into the record a portion of a letter I
received from one of the people who appeared before the committee
as an aquaculture proponent:
In my view you could raise up Jesus Christ himself and put Him
in charge of making abalone farming a reality in Canada, and He
wouldn't get any further than us mortals. The civil service runs
this country to a much greater extent than they should; even the
courts have more to say about the direction things will head than
our elected representatives in the capital. Don't waste any time
on this issue, John. It's a non-starter.
That is how great the cynicism has gone. This is from someone
who has spent years trying to deal with the bureaucracy and
invested a lot of time and a lot of money. The jury is still out
on whether DFO is serious about some of the other recommendations
such as the crushingly expensive and excessive at sea observer
requirement for the groundfish trawl industry on the west coast.
1210
There has been no movement at all on the beam trawl monitoring
program which is also crushing that industry. In the hake
fishery the department failed the community of Ucluelet which
invested $7 million to upgrade its water system. This tiny
community of 1,800 people was able to attract private investment
for onshore hake processing only to be excluded from meaningful
consultation when DFO changed the rules to reduce the portion of
the catch which would be directed to the community at great cost
and with lost jobs. The government makes no apologies, pays lip
service and carries on as before. The callousness is insidious.
The same can be said regarding recommendation 12 of the report.
It deals with maintenance of drainage ditches in agricultural
lands in the Fraser Valley and other B.C. jurisdictions. Once
again the department initiated major changes in 1997 without
consultation. That added red tape and bureaucracy. It ignored
successful protocols that had been developed over decades between
farmers, municipalities, the provincial government and DFO. It
added immensely to costs and derailed normal ditch maintenance.
It imposed burdens on private lands, the equivalent of
expropriation without compensation, and it totally frustrated
municipal and provincial jurisdictions. The government's response
ignored our recommendation to revert to pre-1997 protocol and to
develop a dispute resolution mechanism.
While DFO is expending huge resources on this counterproductive
program, it can find no new resources to fill the shortfall in
field supervision of major projects affecting fish habitat in a
major way. I will give the example of the Vancouver Island
highway project.
What does this all mean? I will go back to the aboriginal
fisheries strategy, the AFS. DFO, the minister and the
government continue to defend AFS pilot sales program despite
continued and growing opposition. It is no surprise that the
latest initiative opposed to the AFS comes from band members
themselves. Natives from Campbell River, Port Alberni and Alert
Bay gathered in Victoria a few weeks ago to protest what they
called damaging pilot sales under this program.
Commercial fishermen both native and non-native are against this
program. They want the minister to stop reallocating their
livelihood. They claim that illegal sales of salmon resulting
from unmanageable pilot sales are completely out of control. But
the minister does not want to hear this.
For the benefit of viewers I should explain that there are two
aboriginal fisheries. There is a fishery for food, ceremonial
and social purposes which no one objects to. This is based on
aboriginal rights. It is constitutionally protected and no one
has a problem with it. It is basically designed in most cases as
a food fishery. The department has set up a racially segregated,
separate commercial fishery based on racial lines under the AFS
pilot sales program. That is where we have the problem.
I will talk about a case in point. At the start of the season
DFO indicated that it would allow a catch of 300 sockeye salmon
in the Sto:lo area on the Fraser River.
These are fish to be used by the Sto:lo people for food, social
and ceremonial purposes. What actually occurred, according to
DFO statistics, is that the actual Sto:lo harvest up to September
18 of this year equalled 324,000 fish.
1215
With a Sto:lo population of 6,000, this equals 341 pounds of
salmon for every man, woman and child. This is far in excess of
legitimate requirements for food, social and ceremonial purposes
and is an encouragement, an enticement, for illegal sales, in
particular when we think that half of the Sto:lo population does
not live anywhere near the Sto:lo communities.
DFO also states that it is concerned about any illegal activity,
meaning the selling of fish not being used for food or ceremonial
purposes. However it proposes to merely consult about this
activity and so far consultation means “do nothing”.
DFO also states that it cannot assume that food levels have been
achieved as a result of the action of some individuals. This
means that in spite of allowing more than 300,000 food fish to be
caught, DFO is not confident that there are enough of these fish
being used for food. In other words, DFO is assuming that most
of these fish are going to be sold illegally by a few people.
The lack of control by DFO over the AFS pilot sales program is
appalling. The all-Canadian commercial sector, which consists of
native and non-native fishermen, has since implementation of the
AFS pilot sales program in 1992 seen its share of the catch
shrink. It has gone from what averaged more than 90% of the
Fraser sockeye harvest to as low as 50%. More boats are on the
river and DFO conservation goals have become impossible to manage
effectively.
This racially segregated fishery is beginning to be exposed for
what it is. What did native commercial fisher Gerald Roberts
from the Campbell River Band say in Victoria last month? “We
cannot survive with pilot sales programs continuing to destroy
our lives. This aspect of the AFS is wrong, divisive and
destructive. Minister Anderson must take a serious look at the
industrial solution”. I could not have said it better myself.
He went on to say: “Not only do the pilot sales programs
threaten the management of the salmon resource, they are also
crippling the businesses and families who cannot access available
harvest”. That says it all.
The minister must end the illegal and divisive aboriginal-only
commercial fishery on the west coast to bring order out of chaos.
If the minister wants to encourage aboriginal fishing, DFO can
increase the 30% current aboriginal participation rate in the
all-Canadian commercial fishing industry by providing grants and
loans to aboriginal people to buy existing commercial fishing
boats and licences.
The committee opposes allowing the minister to have
discretionary powers such as those proposed in the new fisheries
act which died before passage in the last parliament, which, by
the way, would enable the minister to do what he wanted on this
aboriginal file.
The minister should not be given wide discretionary power on
grants to the fisheries. The principle of public right of access
to the fishery must be maintained.
I have finished on that subject. I am now going to talk about
the Canadian coast guard on the west coast.
The minister is presiding over a disaster.
1220
There are four major coast guard radio stations on the west
coast to monitor and control large traffic, to respond to
distress calls and to provide weather information.
Comox station is currently two staff members short of the
minimum required, Tofino is four or five short, Prince Rupert is
four short and Vancouver is ten short. It is a disgrace. There
does not appear to be any commitment to replace workers as they
leave. Since there is a high attrition level, the situation will
only get worse until something is done to remedy it.
British Columbia has the largest coastline of Canada, the most
shipping and it is operational year-round. While the federal
government has designated the workers at the communication
stations as essential workers, DFO has been unwilling to maintain
staffing at essential levels.
Budgetary shortfalls are compromising the safety of marine
traffic. Operational minimum standards are not being met. When
serious conditions have been brought to the attention of DFO,
some band-aid money is found for temporary solutions. However,
there are no long term, systemic changes being implemented and
they are required for marine safety.
In a letter to the minister written just two weeks ago the
chairman of the Campbell River Local Marine Advisory Council
advised that the reduction or elimination of the 24-hour weather
service which is being proposed “could pose a serious safety
hazard to all mariners on the B.C. coast”. This advisory
council has worked for the past three years to assist the coast
guard. The chairman says “To my knowledge, none of these
suggestions has been acted upon”.
This very board was encouraged and set up by the coast guard in
order to make it more responsive to community needs. Three years
later the proof is in the pudding and cynicism grows. DFO pays
lip service to the public.
The only thing that will change the current situation is
political leadership. That is what we need.
The amalgamation of the coast guard with DFO has been, on the
west coast, a major hardship to the coast guard. Coast guard
interests have been submerged by DFO interests. The west coast
is much worse off now. The Reform solution is to put the coast
guard and the Department of National Defence together. This
concept is gaining much currency.
I was pleased to be a member of the standing committee that
produced this report. I believe that the committee filled a very
important role among fishermen since DFO is extremely poor at
dispute resolution.
Low level disagreements get elevated to a political level almost
immediately because no simple protocol exists. This leads to
simmering and unresolved disputes. DFO must implement systemic
change in its organization. It must have an organization capable
of delegating authority so that it does not become a political
exercise.
It is extremely disappointing that the government is not paying
more credence to the committee report. DFO needs all the help it
can get.
Fisheries are forever, while ministers and even bureaucrats are
temporary. The department needs a minister who has vision and is
not captive of the bureaucracy. The current minister may have
some vision, but he is completely captured by his bureaucracy on
most of the major issues and it is getting very late in the day
to break this mould.
We will not achieve the changes we need until we move most of
the entrenched senior bureaucracy out of Ottawa, end the command
and control management style and create accountability for
results within the bureaucracy.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to join the debate responding to the
hon. member's motion.
I come from the central interior of British Columbia. Only
recently, just before the last election, has my riding even
touched the coast.
1225
Members may wish to know why I would be so interested in a
motion concerning fisheries and oceans.
Despite the fact that my hometown is about 600 kilometres north
of the Vancouver area, the Fraser River runs right up the centre
of the province of British Columbia.
Running into the Fraser River are many tributaries: the
Thompson River, the Chilcotin River and the Quesnel River. These
rivers are all major fish spawning grounds.
It has been very interesting for me since being elected as
member of parliament for Cariboo—Chilcotin to come to understand
what a large part this part of the province plays in the fishing
industry and in the replenishment of fish stocks.
One of the first concerns I had was when fisheries decided to
close down a fish hatchery at a little place called Likely, a
fish hatchery on the Quesnel River.
Some dozen years or more ago this hatchery was built, at
considerable expense, to enhance the chinook stocks. These are
large salmon that come up the Fraser and Quesnel rivers.
The essence of this is that fisheries decided this was no longer
an economically feasible project and so, after diminishing the
results of this, cutting back the two million fish that were
supposed to come out to 200,000 or less, they decided to close
the hatchery.
The people of the community of Likely are today sustaining that
200,000 a year level of fish spawning and entry into the river at
their own expense. They capture the fish, they strip the eggs,
they nourish and feed the young salmon as they are growing and
they open the gates and let them go.
What is the federal government contributing to this? Absolutely
nothing.
I would also like to talk about another fishing system in the
Horsefly River. Last year fisheries failed to even open the
spawning channels for the sockeye salmon. The people wrote to
the minister of fisheries about this and the response was that
they did not need those fish stocks. In the face of the decline
that we hear about this year, they were told they did not need
the fish. Those salmon were practically crawling up the banks
looking for a place to lay their eggs. It was so bad that the
spawning grounds were being destroyed by the fish that needed
them.
In Cariboo—Chilcotin the fisheries department has badly
mismanaged its project of enhancing fish stocks and keeping them
at a sustainable level. One of the frequent complaints I get
from my constituents concerns the destruction of fisheries and
the lack of attention that is needed to sustain the stocks.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, as the member for Vancouver Island North and the Reform
member indicated, there is serious trouble happening within DFO
and its management.
As they are aware, we have had 16 ministers in the last seven
years and most of them have used that portfolio as a revolving
door to move somewhere else. They do all the damage they can do
and then they try to destroy another department.
Given what is going on now with the fisheries crisis on all
three coasts and in our inland waters, does he not think it is a
good idea that the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
resign?
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a lot of
co-operation from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
He certainly has shown no credibility in his administration of
the department in the part of the country where I live. It goes
beyond the lack of caring for fish stocks to the way that other
people using the rivers are being troubled.
1230
I had a representation from the Cariboo Mining Association
indicating that fisheries officers were trying to drive the
miners away from the rivers despite the fact that they jump
through all the hoops and keep all the laws.
The hon. member does not make an unreasonable suggestion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the
recorded division stands deferred until Monday, October 19, 1998,
at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions
among all parties with regard to the interim west coast report of
the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and I think you
would find consent to re-defer that vote until the expiry of
Government Orders on Tuesday, October 20.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
BILL C-235
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
discussions have also taken place between all the parties and the
member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge concerning the taking of the
division on Bill C-235 scheduled for today at the conclusion of
Private Members' Business. I believe you would find consent for
the following motion:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-235 all
questions necessary to dispose of the said motion for second
reading shall be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested
and deferred until the expiry of the time provided for Government
Orders, Tuesday, October 20, 1998.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the chief government whip have
unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by many constituents in the national capital
region and from elsewhere across the country requesting that
parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a provision, as
supported in Bill C-340, regarding the rights of spouses, parents
and grandparents to access or to custody of the children.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from the
constituents of Cariboo—Chilcotin, primarily from the city of
Quesnel, British Columbia.
My constituents petition parliament to support Bill C-225, an
act to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act, so as
to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single male and a single female.
INDONESIA
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to present a petition signed by approximately 16,000
Canadians from the Vancouver area.
They draw the attention of the House to the human rights abuses
occurring in Indonesia. Over 1,300 people have been killed,
hundreds of ethnic Chinese women have been brutally raped, and
property has been destroyed and looted.
The petitioners call upon parliament to appeal to President
Habibie of Indonesia to protect the rights of the ethnic Chinese
and to bring to justice those who masterminded and participated
in the racial riots.
1235
JUSTICE
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from my riding of Vancouver Island
North.
The petitioners are asking parliament to repeal Bill C-68 and to
redirect the hundreds of millions of tax dollars being spent on
the licensing of responsible firearms owners and registration of
legally owned guns to more cost effective measures to improve
public safety, such as having more police on the streets,
providing more crime prevention programs and anti-smuggling
campaigns, and to more resources for fighting organized crime and
street gangs.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am
pleased to present a petition today from 327 British Columbia
residents who want to ensure that marriage, as it has always been
known and understood in Canada, is preserved and protected.
The petitioners pray that parliament enact Bill C-25, an act to
amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act, so as to
define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single male and a single female.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that the
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
EXTRADITION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-40, an
act respecting extradition, to amend the Canada Evidence Act, the
Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and the Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and to amend and repeal other
acts in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has nine minutes remaining in his
allotted time.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to conclude my remarks
with respect to Bill C-40 which, as I mentioned at the outset,
the Progressive Conservative Party is supporting in principle. I
was at a point in my remarks where I was generally referring to
the lack of resources that the Liberal government has committed
to frontline police services.
Not to get into a rant on that particular subject, obviously
there is a bit of contradiction when we see legislation brought
forward that is aimed at improving the criminal justice system
without a doubt. I do not in anyway castigate the government for
its intent behind the legislation, but we have seen contradictory
statements with respect to its true commitment to the issue of
justice, in particular to the issue of resources for frontline
police officers who are inevitably tasked with the extremely
important role of protecting Canadians in an effective way.
Those brave men and women are constantly faced with high public
expectations, the need to fight an ever increasing and
complicated criminal element that exists and is growing out
there.
At the same time they are loosing confidence that those who are
responsible, we in the House and particularly the government who
give them the necessary tools to carry out that important task,
are not behind them. It is demonstrable when they see
significant cuts to their budget like, as I previously mentioned,
the $74 million slashing of the RCMP crime budget. These figures
are not imaginary by any stretch of the imagination. They come
from the auditor general.
The auditor general is Canada's top accountant and the person
charged with the crucial task of bringing forward the figures.
One would hope, in light of the recent track record of the
government, that we will not see the auditor general fired for
being truthful in his statement and recitation of facts when it
comes to the numbers and the budgets of particular departments.
I want to take a very brief moment in my remarks to pay special
tribute to the law enforcement agencies, the fire services, the
emergency response teams, those involved in the clean up and the
initial rescue attempts at the crash site of Swissair Flight 111
near Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia. This week those individuals were
given a very sad and in many ways gruesome task of cleaning up
the wreckage on that site.
Individuals from my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough
have been engaged in that exercise. They have been in the hangar
going over material and remnants of the crash. They are engaged
in this very heart-wrenching exercise.
1240
Certainly the quality of mercy has not been strained for all of
those who have given up their time and their effort to take part
in the aftermath of this very tragic event. Individuals such as
Constable Kevin Scott and Reverend Matheson of the town of New
Glasgow and many others who, like the law enforcement agents
themselves, are doing their very best at times with limited
support and resources. They are doing their very best with their
hearts, hands and minds. I certainly want to recognize that
effort.
I look forward to giving my support to Bill C-40 and partaking
in the scrutiny that will take place at the justice committee. I
reiterate the hope I expressed earlier in my remarks. The
government indicates a greater willingness to allow opposition
amendments to improve legislation. That was articulated by the
parliamentary secretary in her remarks on the bill.
On behalf of the PC Party I express support for the particular
piece of legislation. It is a positive initiative, but there are
certainly more questions that will have to be addressed at the
justice committee. I hope a spirit of non-partisanship is now
permeating the government benches when it comes to fundamental
issues of justice.
Other private member's bills are coming forward by government
members and opposition members alike, important legislative
initiatives and changes such as changes to the consecutive
sentencing provisions that currently exist in the Criminal Code.
I again look forward to and anxiously anticipate the opportunity
to partake in that debate both at the justice committee and in
the House of Commons.
I will conclude my remarks with well wishes to you, Mr. Speaker,
and to all for a happy Thanksgiving weekend.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to speak to the bill which deals with profound issues of justice
and jurisdiction. We would all like to see Canada not used as a
haven for criminal acts and we oppose other countries or other
places being used as havens for criminal acts.
Numerous times we have talked in the House—not only myself, not
only the opposition, but the government across the way—about the
need for a fair process. The member for Edmonton West has stated
that “Canada needs modern legislation to succeed”. She went on
to add “laws over 100 years old no longer allow us to deal
with” and then went on to describe the problems with the status
quo. We need some change with regard to the issues of justice
and jurisdiction, and I think it is good that she recognized
that.
Calgarians and Albertans know this issue only too well. I think
back to the issue of Charles Ng where there were serious concerns
with regard to justice and jurisdiction. I could list off
others.
Before I get into the meat of my debate I would like to have
consent of the House to table 7,000 petitions that I have with me
which deal with the issues of justice and jurisdiction so that
all members can look through them to see what real Canadians feel
about the status quo.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous
consent of the House to table these petitions? Are these
uncertified petitions or is the member asking for leave to revert
to petitions?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: It appears there is no consent in any
event, but the hon. member may wish to clarify that point. If
they have been certified he can table them the next time we are
dealing with petitions on our first sitting day back.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately a lot of them
are in the form of letters, e-mails and faxes and as a result are
not in formal petition form. Therefore it would be much easier
to submit them this way with unanimous consent of the House than
go through the process through the Clerk. Can the question be
now put?
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous
consent of the House to table these petitions?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid there is no consent.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, that is unfortunate. I had
hoped these people from Alberta would have had the chance to have
their views heard in the House. The people of Alberta would like
the opportunity to submit the petitions, to have them recognized
and to have their voices heard. That is only fair.
They took the time to write down their names, to send in faxes
and to compose e-mails. They took the time to make the phone
calls and do everything. To have them denied the ability to
have the rest of the members of the House take a look at these
petitions and peruse through them is a real denial of the
fundamental justice. Is this what we have to put up with while
we are in Ottawa?
1245
I would like to speak about how we obtained these petitions.
They were given to us by Dave Rutherford on behalf of the people
of Alberta. Many of the responses are from clip-outs that ran in
the Calgary and Sun newspapers. There are many different
forms of the petition but I would like to read briefly what a few
of them have to say. They are addressed to the Prime Minister.
They say on behalf of these people who have written in that they
demand that the Prime Minister and his government respect the
will of Albertans for choosing their own senators.
That is a pretty simple, straightforward request and it speaks
to the issue of jurisdiction and justice because we have
jurisdictions across the country. We have 10 different provinces
and two territories and they believe they should have fundamental
justice and have the ability to choose for themselves who
represents them in the other place. They are being denied that
today because these petitions are not allowed to be presented.
We were denied unanimous consent to present them on behalf of the
people of Alberta who have taken the time to fill these in.
I would like to talk about the extradition that we should have
performed. Today we are talking about extradition, about justice
and about the whole idea of jurisdiction.
Not so long ago there was a character I will call extradition
Andy. He was not in Canada. He was in another place which we
will call Mexico. In the criminal sentence the maximum he would
have to sit was 65 days a year. He gave himself his own parole.
He gave himself his own walking papers. Instead of serving the
65 days he should have he served only two. He served one in the
spring and one in the fall. What penalty did Andy get for all
this? He got a salary, $64,000 a year. That is what he got in
return for only showing up once every spring and once every fall.
On top of that it was not just a salary. He had a tax free
allowance of $10,000. He also had a budget with regard to his
parliamentary staff on the Hill. All these things were the
sentence that Andy had to serve while he was in the other place.
But that was too much to ask of Andy, 65 days a year for a salary
of $64,000 and a $10,000 tax free allowance. It was too much and
Andy figured that he only had to serve two days of that sentence.
As a result he spent the rest of his time in a safe haven down
in Mexico, his hacienda that cost him about $300,000. Most
Canadians cannot afford that but he certainly had that luxury.
Today we are speaking of the idea of international crime of
people outside the jurisdiction of Canada, people we want to be
able to bring back to serve their time in this country. Andy did
not serve his time. Andy was not serving the people of Ontario.
Andy was not serving the people of Canada and that is a real
travesty. There should have been extradition to bring back Andy
from Mexico but that did not happen, did it?
We have stood up in this place time and again and criticized the
slowness and the complexity of the extradition process. This was
one of those times when there should have been a much faster
process, but year after year Andy was not extradited. Andy was
in Mexico serving a sentence to his own fitting at $64,000 a year
and never a word from the government in terms of extraditing
Andy. Andy was never asked to come home during all those years.
Year after year he spent his time down in Mexico in his hacienda
and the government did not say a word, not a whisper about
extradition for this type of crime that Andy was committing
against the people of Canada and the people of Ontario,
misrepresenting them. That is a shame. That is something this
government should hang its head in shame for. It is not just
that it was something that was right to do.
1250
The Prime Minister, when he was running for the Liberal
leadership in 1990, made promises that this type of thing would
not happen. He said he believed in reforming the Senate. He
promised the people of Alberta, the Liberal Party membership and
the people of this country that he was going to go ahead and
reform the Senate so that we would not have to consider
extradition for some sort of truant like Andy. But that did not
happen. It was another broken promise yet again that was not
fulfilled, one of those red book promises that was not made good.
The people of Alberta took the time to draft and compose 7,000
different petitions, letters and e-mails to address this issue
and today it has fallen on deaf ears of this government—
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I
remind the hon. member of the bill before the House, an
extradition bill which has nothing to do with the Senate. He has
not understood what extradition is all about. That is obvious
from the rhetoric we have been hearing for the last 10 minutes.
I would like the member to stick to what we have before the
House, Bill C-40, a bill on extradition of criminals and
organized crime.
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary secretary does have
a point. The hon. member for Calgary West is really stretching
the point to try to get extradition for a non-attendance as some
kind of means of enforcing attendance. I think perhaps having
made his point he will want to move on and discuss the content of
the bill.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, once again it was up to this
government to define and it has failed to do so with regard to a
host of other justice issues. But it should be a crime for
somebody to take a salary in this land and only serve two days a
year. That should be a crime. That speaks to the Criminal Code.
Should the justice minister and the parliamentary secretary not
be concerned about that?
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Despite
your admonishment the hon. member persists in straying from the
topic of debate which is the Extradition Act. He may think it is
cute in his snide remarks straying from the topic but from the
point of view of most of us here this Friday afternoon, I think
it is a bit of rhetorical masturbation on his part—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member was I thought about
to heed my admonition and proceed with remarks relevant to the
bill before the House.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, those types of low comments
across the way indicate to us the lack of respect that the people
of Alberta get in this institution and around this place when
proposing these types of fundamental changes.
Let me talk about extradition in Bill C-40. It is about
extradition. It is about international crime and international
criminals and havens for crime. It is about slowness and the
complexity of the extradition process and the judicial process in
general. Bill C-40 is about modernizing the law and bringing it
up to speed with the current day. It is about flaws in the
actual mechanics of the law. It is about political intrusion in
the process.
That is what Bill C-40 is about. That is what we are addressing
today. We have all those problems in spades with what is going
on with regard to extradition in this country. It is a crying
shame in this House today that we have Liberals who have reneged
on their promises which they made in 1990, Liberals who reneged
on the promises they made in their red book because they said
they wanted to see a transparent and open process. We are not
seeing that because I am not even allowed to present these
petitions on behalf of the people of Alberta who would love to
see somebody extradited who is spending their time down in Mexico
and violating Canadians by not doing what they should be doing
when they are receiving a salary on behalf of the people of
Canada.
I will have to find some other way to address these things, to
bring them forward and to make sure that the Prime Minister is
able to peruse through these petitions as the hon. members across
the way should have the ability and should also have the duty and
the responsibility to go through these petitions and consider
what Albertans have to say about this issue of extraditing
criminals who are serving outside of Canada in safe havens away
from Canadian law and from the responsibilities here in Canada.
1255
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with amazement. I
cannot believe the member who just spoke is not going to support
this bill. I believe the people of Alberta and the people across
Canada would be appalled to know that he does not want to see
criminals expedited in an expeditious fashion out of this
country. They want to know this bill is going to pass and that
we will have the ability to rid Canada of those people who should
not be here, and also that we send a message to those who would
want to come to Canada as a safe haven. They know this bill will
be a deterrent to those.
I feel very strongly about this because unfortunately Canada for
too long has had the international reputation of being a place
where people could come because our laws were not strong enough.
This bill fixes that problem. I am proud to support it and I
ask the member to stand in his place on behalf of his
constituents to support it.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I have news for those across
the way. This bill is about extradition, not expedition. The
“x” in Federal Express and Fedex is not about extradition, it
is about expedition. So if the member wants to talk about
Federal Express or UPS or Purolator or whatever, she is more than
welcome to do so.
I support extradition and so do the constituents in Calgary
West. We want to see people extradited when they are violating
Canadians, that they do not have a safe haven down in La Paz,
Mexico. What is wrong with this country, that somebody can go
to Mexico and get away from their Canadian responsibilities and
obligations to taxpayers here at home.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the
member trivializes a very important debate. I would ask that he
address himself to the issues of this important bill which will
expedite extradition in this country and ensure that we send a
message to all those around the world that Canada will not be a
haven for criminals. I ask him to stand and support the bill and
stop this nonsense, which is trivializing a very important issue
that Canadians care about.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary
under the guise of a point of order really made a question or
comment on the hon. member's speech to which he may reply.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, members bellyache across the
way, but I remember in Calgary when we had Charles Ng, a repeat
murderer and rapist in the city of Calgary, and this government
lollygagged and did nothing to make sure that man went back to
serve his time in California.
Albertans and Calgarians know too well the problems with
extradition in this land, or expedition in this land, as the hon.
member will have it. But it is also wrong for somebody to go
down to Mexico and have a safe haven just the same way that there
was a safe haven for Charles Ng in my community.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I find it quite appalling that the parliamentary
secretary, who knows the rules very well in this place, would use
a bogus point of order to endeavour to ask two questions in a row
when other people were standing and wanted to pose questions and
comments to my hon. colleague from Calgary West.
1300
I enjoyed very much the member's comments and dissertation on
extradition. He raised a very important issue and that is,
exactly how bad does it have to get as far as senators hiding out
in other lands before we will consider that to be a criminal
offence in this country?
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I think the hon. member knows
that is not relevant to the bill before the House.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a prominent urologist in my riding. He is a
professional of very high standing. He has the misfortune of
being a Libyan national. For three years this very fine medical
practitioner has been trying to get landed immigrant status in
this country. He has been declared clean by CSIS, he has been
declared clean by the RCMP, but the people in immigration are
still bracing their feet.
Does the hon. member believe that if this physician were a known
terrorist or perhaps a fugitive serial rapist that he would have
a better chance of staying in Canada?
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. The
sad thing is that I think my hon. colleague is right.
That prominent urologist would probably have a better chance of
staying in this country if he were a serial rapist or a serial
killer. The reason for that is sad: it is politics, political
intrusion. That is exactly what has happened in situations a
number of times. If the government feels it is a hot potato, it
does not want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. Even if it were a
promise in the red book, a promise in the election and a promise
in the leadership campaigns, the government avoids it like a
10-foot pole. It is terrible. The Liberals toss that hot potato
around and never deal with it. That is a shame.
I will address the question that was posed to me previously
regarding how bad does it have to get. There was a senator who
was only serving 2.6% of the time. That senator should have been
extradited to Canada to serve his time here. We have other
senators who only serve 10% of their time—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am wondering if wild turkey
is being served in the lobbies for lunch today. It is Friday
afternoon and the House is somewhat unruly. I have urged hon.
members to make their questions and comments relevant to the bill
before the House and we seem to drift off the topic at every
turn.
Perhaps we could now move on. If there is a further question or
comment that is relevant to the hon. member's speech and to the
bill, I will be glad to entertain that. Otherwise, we will
resume debate. Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division
stands deferred until Monday, October 19, 1998, at the ordinary
hour of daily adjournment.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I believe you would find consent to
further defer the recorded division requested on second reading
of Bill C-40 to the expiry of Government Orders on Tuesday,
October 20, 1998.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. I am probably stretching this as a point of
order but I want to make the point that many of us will be
involved in committee hearings.
1305
I am on the finance committee. We are travelling across the
country and the rules of the House do not permit us to vote.
Therefore we are effectively disenfranchised when these votes
take place.
I wish that the House leaders would undertake some discussion to
try to arrange for one day when no committees are out in the
country so that we can all be here to vote.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the representations of
the hon. member have been heard by the persons responsible for
these kinds of decisions.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I believe if you were to seek it, you
would find consent to see the clock as being 1.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that we call it 1.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: For all intents and purposes, it
being 1.30 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]
COMPETITION ACT
The House resumed from September 22, consideration of the motion
that Bill C-235, an act to amend the Competition Act (protection
of those who purchase products from vertically integrated
suppliers who compete with them at retail), be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-235 proposes
substantive amendments to the Competition Act. They are intended
to address pricing practices in industries, particularly the
petroleum industry which are characterized by vertical
integration and dual distribution, that is, industries where
firms carry on operations in wholesale and in retail markets and
compete in retail markets with firms to whom they supply at the
wholesale level.
I would like to take a moment initially to commend the hon.
member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge and his colleagues for their
work on the Liberal committee report on gasoline pricing in
Canada. The committee report deals with wide ranging, significant
issues in a professional and constructive manner. It provides all
stakeholders with a solid foundation on which to move forward.
The thrust of Bill C-235 as I understand it is to prevent the
vertically integrated suppliers from squeezing the margins of
their unintegrated customers' competitors in a manner which
threatens the competitive viability of the unintegrated firms,
generally referred to in the petroleum industry as independents.
I would also congratulate the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for his work in preparing the bill as
well as his laudable efforts to find solutions to the problems
facing many of our independent petroleum firms today. His
efforts are very well intentioned.
The proposed means to resolve these issues quite unhappily will
not bring about the results he seeks. They will most certainly
have serious adverse consequences on the Canadian economy in
general and on a number of specific industries and consumers. I
doubt very much that these negative effects which I will try to
explain were intended by my colleague and others when the bill
was drafted.
Bill C-235 contains two proposed amendments to the Competition
Act. I will have to be very careful as I read this because it is
complicated.
First, it would create a new criminal offence which would
prohibit a vertically integrated supplier who both manufactures a
product and sells it at retail from selling to a retailer who
competes with it at a price that is higher than the vertically
integrated supplier's own retail price, less its marketing costs
and a reasonable return.
The objective of the amendment would be to preclude conduct which
would have the effect of decreasing or eliminating the profit
margin available to an unintegrated retailer.
1310
Second, the bill would insert an additional anti-competitive act
into the Competition Act's abuse of dominant position provisions,
prohibiting a vertically integrated supplier from coercing or
attempting to coerce a customer who competes with the supplier at
the retail level in the same market area into adhering to prices
dictated by the supplier rather than allowing the customer to
remain free to set his or her own retail price.
Before discussing the means by which the bill proposes to
achieve these commendable goals, I feel it should be brought to
the attention of my colleagues that provisions addressing both of
these potentially anti-competitive behaviours are already
embodied in the Competition Act and are vigorously enforced by
the Competition Bureau.
Price maintenance cases, as they are known, brought before the
courts involving charges of the specific coercive behaviour
targeted by this bill have proven highly successful for the
crown. They have led to many hundreds of thousands of dollars in
fines and have deterred the repetition of the conduct in
question.
Similarly, conduct by firms that have abused their dominant
position in a market and which has been reviewed by the
Competition Tribunal has led the tribunal to issue orders
prohibiting them from repeating the anti-competitive acts,
thereby restoring the level of competition in the market
affected.
These provisions already exist and are vigorously enforced. I
must ask why we are contemplating redundant legislation.
In order to ensure that vertically integrated suppliers are not
squeezing competing retailers, the bill proposes that the
government or the courts establish what acceptable marketing
costs and a reasonable rate of return would be for all
manufacturers in Canada. Further, for every price change in a
market, no matter how often the prices may change, a manufacturer
would be obliged to ensure that a competing retailer's margin has
not been affected.
Prices in many markets in Canada change daily or even several
times a day, depending on the level of competition and the nature
of the product being sold.
I also remind my colleagues that this bill as drafted is not
restricted to the petroleum sector for which it is specifically
designed, but proposes amendments to an act which affects the
entire Canadian economy.
I believe it will be found that many of our companies rather
than cease to function under the burden of this kind of
regulation will adopt a long term policy of constant prices with
no opportunity for offering the various forms of discounts
normally available.
This kind of price rigidity will negatively affect the ability
of Canadian firms to compete against foreign competitors, will
dissuade foreign investors from locating in Canada and will have
a profound effect on the cost of any downstream users of the
product, including of course consumers. I do not believe the
proposed bill intended to lead to less rather than more
competition and inhibit rather than encourage competitive
pricing.
The amendments could also provide an umbrella for independents,
shielding them from competition from integrated firms who are
likely to refrain from retail price competition in order to
escape criminal liability under the Competition Act.
In the extreme, such amendments could create a whole new set of
problems by inducing integrated firms not to supply independents
as a means of preserving their ability to set their own prices
and limit their exposure to criminal investigation and
prosecution under the Competition Act.
1315
In either case, competition is likely to be reduced, leading to
higher prices for end users, including consumers.
I refer to the words of the hon. member for Huron—Bruce who
spoke in this House on May 27 of this year expressing the
following concerns:
Then what we will have is an uncontrollable monopoly that has
the ability to unilaterally dictate price and availability to one
of the country's most essential commodities. In short, there
will be higher prices and fewer competitors.
Before I close I must also say that in order to properly address
this very complex issue we must realize that the matter of
directing legislation toward a specific industry under our
Constitution is the purview of the provinces. Therefore it would
behove all of us concerned about this issue to direct the effort
to the provinces.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to this bill today.
The stated purpose of Bill C-235 is to establish fair pricing for
products at the wholesale level. It is also to prevent
anti-competitive acts such as predatory pricing and price
discounting in industries where suppliers compete with their own
customers.
As some of the other speakers to this bill have commented, the
existing Competition Act already deals directly with the subject
matter of this bill. If members read sections 78 and 50 of the
Competition Act they will see that suppliers are already
prevented from doing the things denounced by Bill C-235.
One of the problems with this government is that wherever it
perceives a problem it thinks that the solution is to pass more
legislation to fix the problem. Bill C-235 is a perfect example
of this kind of behaviour. It seems that there was a perceived
problem with vertically integrated suppliers fixing the price of
a commodity. In other words, there is a feeling that big
petroleum companies are driving small suppliers of gasoline out
of business.
Because predatory pricing, price fixing and anti-competitive
practices are seen to be negative activities, and indeed they
are, Bill C-235 was drafted to overcome these problems.
Unfortunately, in attempting to expand on sections 78 and 50 of
the existing Competition Act, Bill C-235 muddies the water and
complicates the issues.
The Independent Retail Gasoline Marketers Association of Canada
supports the bill, saying it will be the first step in
re-establishing retail competition in the oil industry. The
Canadian Petroleum Products Institute does not support the bill.
It says that the effect of this bill is to create a price premium
for consumers to protect them from the benefits of open
competition.
Which of these positions is correct? IRGMA also says that once
competition is reduced through lack of public policy initiatives
by any level of government the consumer will pay in the final
analysis.
Reform believes that competition is essential in the operation
of a free market system. However, we do not believe that
competition should be artificially created and promoted. It
should merely be enforced.
CPPI makes a good point when it asks: Is the proposed
legislation of benefit to consumers, and by what tests has this
been determined? It is not a good idea to draft, promote and
pass legislation just because someone thinks it is a good idea.
There must be facts and reality behind any attempt to govern what
people do in business.
It seems that everyone, whether for or against the bill, is for
fair competition. What we have to determine is whether this bill
stands in the way of fair competition.
1320
There is considerable concern in the business community about
the way this bill is worded. Although we understand that the
bill was drafted with vertically integrated petroleum companies
in mind, it is not worded with those specifics. The
telecommunications industry has expressed concern that there have
been no studies done on the economic impact of this bill on
markets and industries in Canada. Since we already have a
similarly worded section existing in the Competition Act, why are
we taking risks in fiddling with the wording of these sections
and perhaps undermining the intent of that act, which is to
promote proper competition in the marketplace?
The bill could possibly result in wholesalers and retailers
communicating and agreeing on prices in order to comply with the
provisions of the bill. If this occurs, the bill could actually
encourage illegal price maintenance between wholesalers and
retailers, exactly the opposite of its intent. It is also
possible that if companies have to go to court to determine
whether the provisions of this bill are being complied with, then
the courts, and not competitive markets, would be used to
determine fair prices. Do we really want to see this happen?
Another possible effect of this bill might be that efficiencies
resulting from vertical integration could be ignored. If
efficiencies in business are ignored or discounted or
discouraged, consumers fail to benefit from the savings that
those companies might experience.
A summary of the bill says that it would provide for the
enforcement of fair pricing. We have to look long and hard
whenever a government gets involved in enforcing fairness. Who
decides what is fair? How do they do this? Invariably this
becomes government rewarding friends and being subject to all
kinds of things, such as favouritism and influence peddling.
What is true competition? How many businesses does it take to
make true competition? If the point of competition is to provide
price benefits to consumers, how do we determine when this has
occurred? Under current provisions of the Competition Act
suppliers are already prevented from price fixing, abuse of
dominant position and unfair market practices.
The petroleum industry has been investigated several times by
the Competition Bureau. Currently the cost to the consumer and
the retailer's profits are affected by the high level of tax that
exists as part of the gas price. The consumer would be much
happier to see the price of gasoline drop. We all would.
Naturally, the retailer would be happier to see an increase in
profits.
Realistically, these things will only happen if taxes on
gasoline are reduced. The resulting positive effect on industry,
business and the consumer would be a more competitive
marketplace.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it would be a very rare day that I would agree with
anyone on the government side. However, today, on behalf of my
party, I plan to definitely do that.
First I want to speak about my colleague, the hon. member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, whose riding is in the beautiful
province of Saskatchewan. He has made tremendous efforts
throughout his entire political and business career trying to get
the gas and oil companies and governments to listen not only to
his concerns and those of his constituents, but also to the
concerns of Canadians right across the country.
I want to send the hon. member who is presenting this bill today
kudos. Although it may not be strong enough, it is a step in the
right direction and we compliment him on that.
I will speak as a consumer. I have always believed that the gas
companies get away with far too much. They are much too friendly
with the government of the day.
My colleague from the Reform Party says that they can look after
themselves.
Today in Toronto gas prices went up 8 cents per litre, just
before the Thanksgiving holiday long weekend. That is an
absolute outrage.
1325
There are two people in my riding who have done an exceptional
job in trying to focus this issue on the gas companies and
protection not only for consumers but for jobs and independent
retailers. They are Mr. David Collins, the vice-president of
Wilson Fuels, and Mr. John Holm, the MLA for Sackville, which
happens to be in my riding of Sackville—Eastern Shore. These
two individuals have fought very hard.
I wish to read from a letter that Mr. Collins wrote to my hon.
colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.
Bill C-235 aims to amend the Competition Act so that all market
participants treat Retailers in a fair and equitable way, and
ensures that wholesalers of fuel (both Refiners and Marketers who
wholesale) market their fuel in a non-discriminatory fashion.
Furthermore, Bill C-235 will go a long way towards breaking the
oligopolistic practices of the major oil companies, and their
efforts at market control through the widespread use of “Zone
Pricing”.
The practice of “Zone Pricing” is frequently used to target
Independent Marketers by offering certain outlets who are in
close contact to Independents preferential pricing. The impact
of this preferential pricing technique is to discipline smaller
players into price conformance. This is why prices in Canada are
routinely uniform through a region.
It is important to note that this is not the case in the United
States. The reason for that is simple—the U.S. has many rules,
which serve to encourage competition, and hence through the
practice of increased competition—a wider choice and lower
prices benefit customers. Manju Sekhri will be forwarding copies
of the U.S. legislation, which applies to gasoline Marketing in
the U.S., and as a comparison what we have in Canada.
We will all be startled by the disparity which exists between
ourselves and our free trade partners. This important element
between our two countries was left out of the free trade
agreement.
I wish to get a little closer to my own riding and deal with the
Ultramar plant. In 1990 Ultramar took over the Texaco plant, in
the home of Eastern Passage—Cow Bay, with the assistance of
provincial and government financing of $50 million. The object
of that $50 million was to protect jobs and create competition in
the market.
Unfortunately, the deal was for seven years. Ultramar decided
in 1994 to leave town halfway through its commitment to that
loan. One hundred and sixty extremely well paying jobs were
devastated and gone. There was less competition within the area
and not once did the provincial or the current government ask
Ultramar for any of that money back. It was gone.
To throw salt into the injury, the Economic Development
Corporation, which this government tends to lean on quite
heavily, insulted workers and families in Nova Scotia.
an oil company in the United Arab Emirates came with cap in hand
to Canada saying they would like to pick off the finer parts of
the refinery and shift it over to their country to create their
own employment. That is an extremely wealthy nation. They
could have reached into their pockets and paid for it themselves.
What did we do? We gave them $25 million of our tax dollars to
dismantle the plant as well as two other refineries in British
Columbia to create employment in that country. We continuously
destroy jobs in this country. I am ashamed.
As part of the 1990 takeover of Texaco by Ultramar, Ultramar
undertook the competition directorate to continue operating an
oil refinery in Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia for seven years. In
1993 Ultramar further agreed that if it ceased operations it
would give the director evidence of efforts to publicly sell the
refinery.
In 1994 Ultramar gave notice of its intention to close the
refinery. They did not even look for a competent buyer to buy the
plant, even though we have record after record showing that there
were enough buyers out there to buy the entire plant, the wharves
and the docks. Ultramar refused with provincial and federal
capitulation. It is absolutely scandalous that this continues.
I should also say on behalf of my colleague from
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre that if Bill C-235 does not fulfil
all the aspirations of what we are looking for and what consumers
are looking for, my hon. colleague also has a bill on the order
paper, Bill C-384, an act respecting the energy price commission.
1330
The bill would establish a commission to regulate the wholesale
and retail price of gasoline, taking into account both the public
interest in having reasonable and consistent prices and the need
for manufacturers, distributors and wholesalers to have
reasonable costs covered. The commission could also conduct
hearings on competition in the oil industry referred to it by the
competition tribunal.
In Canada we accept that some prices of goods and services which
are central to the economy and often controlled by monopolies or
near monopolies ought to be regulated in the public interest.
That is true for telephone rates, cable TV and other prices.
I certainly cannot let something like competition go without
mentioning the bank mergers. I am hoping that if we cannot get
it through on the opposition side a member of the government side
will bring in a private member's bill to stop and halt the bank
mergers because that also would destroy competition in this
country.
Independent gas retailers are small business people who promote
competition and keep prices down. But they are vulnerable to the
pricing practices of major oil companies. It is absolutely
scandalous that this would continue.
Last summer there was a gasoline price war in the city of
Moncton where things almost came to blows because gasoline was so
low. All it did was be destructive. Although the consumers
enjoyed it for a while in the end it was more harmful than it was
good.
On behalf of Mike Williams, the head of the Atlantic Oil Workers
Union of Nova Scotia, and his 160 workers who have worked so
diligently to try to get a bill like this passed, I want to say
to the member presenting this bill he has the full co-operation
of this union and he has the full co-operation of our party in
putting this bill forward.
Mr. Speaker, I wish you and your family, all members and those
people in the gallery a very happy Thanksgiving.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I commend the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for
bringing forward Bill C-235. This bill would amend the
Competition Act and reverse a devastating trend against small
business, entrepreneurs and the consumer.
The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge has pursued this issue
for years because he sees a long established Canadian industry,
our independent gasoline retailers, being pushed out of existence
by unfair and predatory wholesale practices. He also sees
consumers with less and less real choice and an overwhelming
sense of powerlessness at the hands of the large integrated
producers.
In many ways Bill C-235 is about protecting the fundamental
elements of Canadian entrepreneurship. Throughout this country
in every business sector there are Canadians who have mortgaged
all they own to establish their own enterprise, their own
business, their own job. They are determined to compete by
working harder, by working longer hours, by being more
innovative, by taking smaller margins and, most important, by
serving the customer better.
It is these entrepreneurs who have built Canada's thriving
retail sector. They have provided consumers with choice, with
service, with better value. In return these retailers eke out a
living for their families, are a main source of first jobs for
young people and contribute to the local community through their
taxes and community work.
These independent entrepreneurs are able to offer the consumer
competitive choice only when there is genuine competition among
their suppliers, only when they can get an acceptable margin
because suppliers want business and are willing to provide
product at legitimate market rates. Regrettably, this is not the
case today in several sectors, most particularly in the gas
industry.
It is now proven beyond serious debate that integrated suppliers
of gasoline have sought to forward integrate into the consumer
market, not by buying successful retailers or establishing more
efficient retailers but by exterminating independent competition
through manipulation of wholesale prices.
1335
Recently the stories of gas retailer being forced out of the
market have been publicized because of the threat posed to all
small resellers by the same practices. In one report documented
in the Financial Post illustrative of the overall situation
a retailer in Georgetown near Mississauga received a notice from
his supplier Shell Canada informing him that after more than 65
years as a retailer of Shell products he would be cut off from
any supply at all. It was not enough that his margin had been
squeezed as Shell raised wholesale prices and independent look
alike outlets emerged in his markets.
Clearly Shell was not satisfied with the retail market share it
was winning by normal business practices and had to use its power
as a producer to weaken retail competition. It is my view that
we cannot allow Canadian consumers to be at the mercy of a few
large integrated providers of gasoline or any other commodities.
We cannot allow Canadian resellers and small entrepreneurs to be
driven out of the market by predatory pricing by less efficient
integrated competitors. Canada will be most productive if we
reward and protect efficiency at every stage of service delivery.
If Canada's oil companies want to win 100% of the retail market
they should have to win it by fair competition. They have enough
natural advantages, brand names, access to capital, ability to
build service centres and restaurants to fuel sales. They must
not be able to win the market by squeezing out the competition by
raising wholesale prices close to or above retail.
We need Bill C-235 most because the current Competition Act is
failing to protect Canadians against pricing that is clearly
intended to reduce their choices and ultimately increase prices
where no independent competition remains.
This week again motorists in southern Ontario awoke to another
holiday weekend price gouge. Yet there is nothing they can do
because there are so few independents left they have no choice
but to buy from one of the big integrated producers. So let us
not pretend we have an acceptable level of competition even
today.
I ask all members of the House to cast a vote for Canada's small
independent business people and protect consumers at the same
time by supporting Bill C-235. If we want to preserve a country
where independent, hardworking entrepreneurs can thrive we need
more legislation like Bill C-235. We need more legislation to
guarantee competition, more legislation against producers and
brokers constricting and manipulating supply to destroy the small
retailer, and more legislation to protect consumers from being at
the mercy of those industries where genuine independent
competition has already gone extinct.
It is time to send a message that this House will always put
consumers first and will act decisively whenever confronted by an
industry that abuses its position in the market to deprive
Canadians of the competition.
Let me close by commending once again the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for his unbending resolve on this issue
in the face of an intense lobby. Consumers need this kind of
initiative to put the spine back into competition laws in Canada.
1340
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-235, a bill that if
passed would have a profound effect on the way companies do
business in Canada. The bill is sponsored by the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, the chair of the Liberal caucus
committee on gasoline pricing. Since its inception last
September, the committee has conducted a number of meetings
across Canada to receive comments on gasoline prices.
This bill is similar to the bill introduced by the same member
in the 35th parliament. It was then known as Bill C-381. In
reality the member's intent to adjust the Competition Act with
this bill is born from the fact that in several complaints to the
competition tribunal, independent retailers have been unable to
prove either of the following infractions took place, predatory
pricing or abuse of dominant position.
Instead of accepting that there is a competitive unregulated
market, Bill C-235 seeks to skew the playing field in favour of
the independents. Occasionally it is warranted for the
Parliament of Canada to intervene in the marketplace. However,
in this situation we have to ask if Bill C-235 as it stands is
such a reasonable intervention.
In order to judge the merits of the bill we need to look at the
potential impact of the bill. My colleague, the member for
Markham, addressed the point that the infractions the bill seeks
to address are already covered by the present Competition Act.
Section 50(1)(c) of the act already deals effectively with
potential predatory pricing. Section 61 deals with price
maintenance. Section 78(a) addresses price squeezing by
vertically integrated companies.
Now that we have established that the act as it stands already
addresses the member's concerns, let us discuss what
ramifications could result from Bill C-235. The fundamental
problem with this bill as seen by the Progressive Conservative
Party is its blatant manipulation of basic free market
principles.
In this case the bill would create a regime whereby gasoline
pricing would be set based on a formula that would include a
combination of market forces and a provision for a minimum profit
margin. Clause 50.1(2)(a)(ii) would allow the courts to
interfere in what constitutes a reasonable profit. This situation
is worsened by the fact that the bill would entrench certain
conditions between vertically integrated suppliers and their
customers. Whether or not governments should be interfering in
that relationship at all is certainly a point for debate.
However, the issue that most disturbs me is that this bill
completely disregards any efficiencies that arise from vertically
integrated companies. For example, Imperial Oil would fall under
the definition of a vertically integrated supplier. It operates
refineries, it has its own retail outlets and it sells to
independents that are its competitors. Under the terms of Bill
C-235 it would not be permitted to pass on savings realized by
its economy of scale to its customers without doing two things.
First, it would have to ensure that its price reduction was in
compliance with Bill C-235, a decision that would have to be
adjudicated by the competition bureau. Second, it would have to
make a corresponding reduction to any competitors that buy from
it.
Advocates of this bill have come to the conclusion that this is
fair and proper. However, I respectfully submit they are living
in a fantasy world. A more reasonable expectation would be that
Imperial Oil would make a smaller price reduction if any were
made at all. That way it could remain compliant, the independents
would receive a small benefit and the consumers would lose. This
point needs to be stressed.
Different spokespeople for Bill C-235 have tried to sell it as a
bill that would protect independent retailers as well as
consumers. The harsh reality is that consumers would only be
victims under this bill.
1345
I want to go a step further with my analogy. Another possible
outcome of the situation facing our analogous company, Imperial
Oil, could be a decision on its part to discontinue supplying
independents altogether. If it is no longer a vertically
integrated company, it would not have to deal with the
Competition Bureau every time it wanted to lower its prices,
offer coupons or give away a two litre bottle of pop. This is
not an unreasonable outcome to predict, and it would be the exact
opposite effect of what the bill's sponsor is trying to achieve.
My party has spoken to many stakeholders on this issue and
through those interviews we have come to learn a great deal about
the whole industry. Several years ago Canada and its provinces
began moving from a regulated to an unregulated gasoline
industry. Instead, we have preferred to maintain general rules
of competition, as embodied in the Competition Act. This
situation does not exist in the United States and as a result
rules change from state to state. I am sure my hon. colleague
can understand what kind of inefficient marketplace this creates.
There can be no doubt that the result of Bill C-235 will be to
increase gasoline prices across this nation by creating an
artificial profit margin. This quite frankly is legislated
protection of inefficiency.
Up to this point my comments have focused on the oil industry
and I have done so for a reason. This bill has been developed to
specifically target that industry. Unfortunately, just as
indiscriminate tuna nets catch dolphins, this bill will impact
many other industries.
One aspect that should disturb us all is that if passed we would
enter a new retail environment, one where wholesalers and
retailers would be encouraged to communicate and agree on retail
prices in order to comply with provisions of the bill. The
result would be an increase in the likelihood of illegal price
maintenance clauses. That is not my opinion but instead the
reasoned opinion of the president and CEO of the Stentor Company.
The letter also goes on to concur with what my colleague, the
member for Markham, said in this House previously. Bill C-235
will create another level of bureaucracy with inefficient,
burdensome compliance regulations. The following point bears
repeating. The courts will be used to determine prices and
margins and not market forces. This would have to be the case
because no definition exists for the bill's provision of what
constitutes a reasonable profit.
The last point I want to make is that we have in existence right
now a comprehensive world class Competition Act which was enacted
as such by the previous Conservative government in 1986. I take
this opportunity to assure my hon. colleague that the foresight
of that government saw to it that necessary protection for all
sizes of companies was implemented.
The act covers perdition, pricing with the express purpose of
destroying a competitor. It covers below cost selling. It
covers abuse of dominant position.
In short, there is nothing in Bill C-235 that is not already
effectively and fairly addressed by the act. Legislation that
benefits only special interests and not the whole marketplace
cannot be supported. Therefore we will be voting against Bill
C-235 in its present form.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
beg the indulgence of the House. I forgot to wish my mom and dad
who are watching a very happy Thanksgiving.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure all hon. members join the
hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore in that expression.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have heard a lot from all sides of the House. I know
there are members who feel very passionately about this. Those
happen to be the very members who have actually taken the time to
study this, who have not allowed CPPI or an oil company or the
Competition Bureau to help them write their speech or to find out
some kind of mythical idea about what this industry is all about.
The member for Tobique—Mactaquac and his colleague from Markham
are good examples of people who simply do not want to engage in a
real cerebral discussion of what this bill is all about.
That is exactly why they do not want it to go to committee.
1350
That member who comes from New Brunswick made a statement about
the fact that everything is hunky-dory in this industry. He
should look at the New Brunswick select committee all-party
resolution of that province last year which indicated that we
needed effective laws dealing with predatory pricing that
currently do not exist.
I want to get into the Stentor question because Stentor has
written a letter expressing surprise that it was possible for the
Competition Bureau to go around looking for people to find
opposition to the bill. It is kind of ironic that it is this
bill which is in fact giving them the tools to resolve the
problem that exists. Stentor may have a huge problem with
respect to the power of the vertically integrated suppliers that
relate to the Internet service provider.
The opposition is correct that the bill was about the oil
industry, but it seems to me there are a lot of other industries
and small businesses, which the people on the other side wish to
advocate, that are being decimated day in and day out. That is
not hypothetical; that is reality.
With respect to the retail industry, we are asking in Canada to
do what the parent companies cannot do in the United States. The
legislation is designed very specifically to bring the
Competition Act up to speed with the rest of the world before we
recognize that in Ontario, where gas prices have increased by
eight cents a litre, it is not a function of competition.
I do not know what it takes for members of parliament to try to
understand this issue. There were 20,000 retailers a few years
ago. There are less than 10,000 now. There will probably be
fewer in days to come.
Consumers across the country know that when gas prices move up
uniformly or fall uniformly it is a function of the wholesalers
that have absolute control over the retail price. They are not
separate. They are not segregated. The bill simply tries to
address a safeguard which, in summation, was the recommendation
of the Competition Bureau in 1986.
I ask the House to put aside the biases, the willingness to play
politics, to stand up for small business and to stand up for the
truth. At the end of the day that would ensure what we do not
have today in the oil industry in Canada, a truly competitive
Canadian market.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.52 p.m., the time provided for
debate has expired.
[English]
Pursuant to order made earlier today, the question on the motion
is deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed
demanded and deferred until Tuesday, October 20, 1998, at the
expiry of time provided for Government Orders.
May I join with hon. members, who expressed their wishes for a
good Thanksgiving to our colleagues, friends and the people
watching, to extend the very best wishes for the weekend from me
and the other chair occupants. I look forward to seeing hon.
members on our return after a week of constituency work, which I
know members will enjoy.
It being 1.53 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday,
October 19, 1998, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2)
and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.53 p.m.)